Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Housing

Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to review the methodology used to calculate anticipated housing need in non-metropolitan counties. [14842]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The methodology used to produce the latest household projections for the regions, counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs is set out in "Projections of Households in England to 2016" published by the Stationery Office in March 1995. That methodology has been subject to extensive public scrutiny. My Department is continuing to examine the extent to which household formation is affected by economic and social factors, in line with recommendations in the 1996 Environment Committee report on housing need.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he accept that everyone agrees that there must be enough houses for local people to live in, but that not a single local authority in Somerset—I am sure that we are no exception to the rest of the country—believes that the inward migration figures without employment are sustainable, that brown-field sites are available in rural areas, and that our green-field sites should be taken up in a suburbanisation of Somerset? Will he change his view?

Mr. Prescott: The matter is under consideration by the regional planning council, whose projections are 11 per cent. more than the councils in the area accept. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, such matters are decided by a panel that is set up to consider the disagreement between the regional planning council and Somerset council. As soon as the panel reports, I am sure that it will make its recommendations to the council. It is to meet first in January.
There is clearly a conflict between inward migration and the control of the figures for housing. If housing were allowed to develop in line with the figures recommended by the regional planning council, that would avoid some

of the difficulties by limiting the number of houses available and increasing the cost of houses in an area where inward migration becomes a problem.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if the figures that are projected for Devon are accepted, the increase in the population of Devon will be approximately 30 per cent? That is an impossibility, if we are to keep the country heritage of the county. All Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, ask the Government to reconsider.

Mr. Prescott: The Government are always involved in considering such figures, but the regional planning council examines all the considerations to be taken into account and arrives at those figures. We do not limit people's movements in this country; people are free to move where they wish, and we must try to meet their requirements for housing. That brings us to the conflict between green-field and brown-field sites, about which there is so much controversy. Those are matters for public debate, and the debate is clearly under way.

Mr. Yeo: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the Government's refusal to raise the 50 per cent. target for the proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed sites will not only destroy huge areas of beautiful countryside, but reflects the fact that this Labour Government neither care nor understand anything about rural life?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the Government's position. We have adopted the figure of 50 per cent. set by the previous Administration; the previous Administration aspired to 60 per cent. in brown-field sites; and the round table on sustainable development suggested 75 per cent. We are reviewing the options under the Green Paper on household growth that was produced by the previous Administration. There have been more than 700 responses and the Government have not yet taken a position on the matter, except to endorse the present 50 per cent figure. We think that right and proper. We think it right to have proper consultation, as we are doing. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

Regional Development Agencies

Mr. Connarty: What representations he has received regarding the structure and functions of the proposed regional development agencies.[14843]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): We have received around 1,500 responses to the issues paper on regional development agencies, which we published on 11 June. I have today placed in the Library of the House a list of those responses, and copies are available for inspection at my Department's library.

Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that these matters were high on the agenda of the recent conference of the Yorkshire Tourist Board, at which I spoke? Is he aware of the excitement with which tourist operators particularly view the prospects for the proposed regional development agencies? Will he


ensure that the best of our private enterprises are allowed to operate on and with these regional development agencies within the guidelines set by the Government?

Mr. Caborn: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, which are reflected in the 1,500 responses that we have received. There has been detailed dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I think that my hon. Friend will find that the White Paper reflects those responses and reacts to the very positive mood of the private sector in the regions.

Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great deal of concern that the regional development agencies may be used as a basis for regional government? Will he please confirm that that is not the Government's intention? With regard to Lincolnshire, will he accept that it is best grouped with Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk rather than with the east midlands counties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire?

Mr. Caborn: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that we won the general election on 1 May, and that we won it on the basis of our manifesto, which spells out very clearly the Government's devolution strategy. We have embarked upon that strategy, which has been endorsed by Scotland and Wales—and London will be given the opportunity to do the same.
As to the English regions, we have said that we will start with regional development agencies that will address the economic deficit—which is the legacy that the previous Administration left to those regions. We shall then continue, through indirectly elected regional chambers, to a position when, in the fulness of time, the people in the regions will be given the opportunity to say that they want to have directly elected regional assemblies. That is the position spelled out in Labour's manifesto—and I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we won the election.

Mr. Cunliffe: How soon can the Minister place on a fast track regional government for the north-west region? Does he accept that limited self-rule is imperative and that there is unanimity among the Confederation of British Industry, all employers federations, local government, trade unions and Members of Parliament about the need to get it off the ground as quickly as possible? Is it really necessary to hold a local referendum before we do that?

Mr. Caborn: The simple answer for my hon. Friend is the same as that which I gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: we have made a commitment to the British people and we will live by the contract in our manifesto. If my hon. Friend waits to see the White Paper that will be published later this month or in early December, I think that he will find answers to the many questions raised by his colleagues in the north-west.

Sir Norman Fowler: As to the democratic deficit to which he alluded, will the Minister confirm that regional development agencies are simply appointed bodies or quangos? Taking up the point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), will the Minister confirm specifically whether he is planning to have any elected regional assemblies in operation in the course of this Parliament?

Mr. Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it perfectly clear on the record a few weeks

ago that there will be no directly elected regional assemblies until after the next general election. That is the position. Quite honestly, we do not need any lectures from Conservative Members about establishing quangos—we are in the process of rationalising them, thank you very much.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Sir Robert Smith: If he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for meeting the target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels.[14844]

Mr. Prescott: We shall consult next spring on a programme that will address our 20 per cent. target and the legally binding commitments that we shall have as a result of the Kyoto conference. All sectors of the economy must be prepared to play a part. I welcome the willingness of the chemical industry, for example, to make a commitment to reduce its specific energy consumption compared with 1990 levels by 20 per cent. by 2005.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer, as far as it goes. Does he accept that the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce energy consumption, and in particular carbon-based energy? To that end, will he join us in supporting—next week rather than next spring—the national home energy conservation week by lobbying the Chancellor to cut VAT on energy insulation materials to the same level as energy supply in his green budget later this month?

Mr. Prescott: All these matters will be considered at the appropriate time. Taxation changes will be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has made a start in considering taxation with regard to environmental gains, as he did with the charge on petrol. There are many other things that we must actively consider in these matters. Transport has a very important part to play in reducing CO2 gases. Our White Paper will be published in the spring. We are looking at renewable energy and at more efficiency in energy production. All these areas are actively under review, in line with wanting to meet the target that we set ourselves of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. of 1990 levels by 2010.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Deputy Prime Minister remember the special contribution that coal and the coal energy generation industry has made in reducing targets? Will he accept my backing of everything that he is doing to protect the coal industry and coalfield communities?

Mr. Prescott: Yes. It does well for the House to remind itself that one of the consequences of meeting our environmental target, which we are so proud to proclaim internationally, as one of only three countries to do so, was the considerable destruction of the coal industry. That has had tremendous detrimental effects on coalfield communities. That is why I set up a task force to deal primarily with this problem, because we have a responsibility to deal with the consequences of climatic change on the areas that are detrimentally affected by it.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share the keen disappointment of so many people


that President Clinton has reneged on the United States Government's commitment at the Rio summit to stabilise emissions by 2000 AD on 1990 levels, by putting it back by 13 years? Will the Deputy Prime Minister use whatever influence he has to try to get a change of opinion from the United States Government?

Mr. Prescott: We should recall that only three countries achieved the target that was set at Rio. That is why all the nations have agreed the legal targets that we are attempting to impose now with the Kyoto conference. Although the Americans have said that they now accept those legal targets, to accept the zero target that they set themselves will mean a reduction in CO2 gases of 25 per cent. —an even bigger cut than has been witnessed in some European countries. Nevertheless we must encourage them to do more.
Indeed, I recently met Vice-President Gore to talk about precisely that. I leave on Thursday to talk to the Prime Ministers of India, New Zealand and Australia, and to talk to the Environment Minister in Japan to see how we can get an agreement and encourage people to do a lot more to meet the targets. We are doing that, and Britain is playing a leading part in attempting to achieve it.

Businesses

Mrs. Brinton: What plans he has to encourage businesses to adopt environmentally friendly practices.[14845]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government are providing advice and guidance through the energy and environmental best practice programmes; promoting the take-up of accredited environmental management systems and encouraging public reporting by companies on their environmental performance. We are also increasing consumer awareness so that companies have better incentives to produce environmentally friendly products.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that in my constituency many small and medium businesses are working very hard, in association with the authorities and other organisations, to develop environmentally friendly practices? Is he further aware that all our efforts will be set at naught unless these are complemented by similar action from some of the global industries, in particular the large oil companies? How does he plan to respond to some interesting overtures that are being made by some of these industries, in particular BP and Shell, to develop policies and ways of working to combat the terrible effects of global warming and associated climate change?

Mr. Meacher: I am certainly aware of the initiative taken by the Supersavers project in Peterborough, where very substantial savings have been achieved through the employer involving employees, in particular the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, in that project. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The leading companies have to be involved. She mentioned Shell. In fact Shell recently launched new, renewable businesses, and plans investments of more than half a billion dollars over the next five years.
My hon. Friend also mentioned BP, which, incidentally, has left the Global Climate Coalition. I hope that Shell will soon do the same.
BP has made a substantial investment in solar energy. Only today, the Chemical Industries Association signed an agreement—voluntarily—to achieve a 20 per cent. cut in energy consumption, and hence in carbon dioxide emissions, by 2005. So it is beginning to happen, but we must go a great deal further. We will publish our White Paper soon after Kyoto, setting out what we expect from each sector of business.

Mr. Pickles: At a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the Minister explored the possibility of fiscal incentives for companies. Does he agree with the general principle that any shift towards green taxation should be neutral, and that it should not increase the general burden of taxation?

Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said in his first Budget that he will pay particular attention to the issues of quarrying, water pollution charges and the landfill tax, which was introduced by the last Government at a low level. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any commitment that an increase in green taxes would automatically be offset, but I believe that there is a case—as there was in regard to the landfill tax—for giving companies an incentive by enabling them to make contributions to environmentally sensitive alternative objectives. That is a good model, and one that we will follow closely.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the successful efforts of small firms such as Cambridge Econometrics and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre—both of which are in my constituency—to persuade employees to walk and cycle to work rather than using their cars?

Mr. Meacher: That is extremely desirable. I was asked earlier whether Ministers would participate and give a lead. I think that everyone who is in a public position should try to give a lead, and one of the best ways of reducing greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions—especially in the context of transport—is not just driving vehicles that are cleaner or more fuel-efficient, but using cars less: walking more, cycling more or using public transport. All of us, without exception, should be doing that.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister consult a small company in my constituency called Environmental Engineering Concepts? Will he also consult the local council and the education and library board? They have produced a product which, when added to fossil fuels, causes almost complete combustion, reduced emissions and greater efficiency, and also pays for itself. It is so good that it has not been taken seriously. The last Government had an opportunity to examine the product, but I heard no more about it. I appeal to the Minister to follow the project through.

Mr. Meacher: I would be extremely interested if the hon. Gentleman would send me details of that project. It is exactly the kind of initiative and breakthrough that


we wish to support. I am saddened, although not surprised, that the last Government were so indifferent, but the hon. Gentleman will find that the present Government have a very different attitude. If he sends me the details, we will act on them.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Viggers: When he next plans to meet representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss local government finance.[14846]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met the association a number of times to discuss local government finance, and I shall be seeing it again in December at a sub-group meeting of the central-local partnership to discuss the review of local government finance. We intend to meet the association regularly, and to involve it fully in taking forward policies that affect local government.

Mr. Viggers: Did the Local Government Association, at its meeting with the Minister, repeat its estimate that local authorities will be about £1 billion short of funding this year? That shortfall does not take account of either the extra burdens put on local authorities for crime prevention and education, or the change in the Budget to advance corporation tax, which imposes a pension tax liability on local authorities estimated at £300 million a year. What will be the Government's attitude? Will they recompense local authorities for those extra burdens, or will they stand aside and watch what must inevitably be an extremely large rise in council tax rates this year?

Ms Armstrong: In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a further £1 billion for local government to spend on education. If the hon. Gentleman cares to wait until the week beginning 1 December, he will hear how that money has been allocated.
We are discussing pensions with the Local Government Association, but it knows as well as we do that that measure will have no impact on local government in 1998–99. The association is seeking a revaluation, and wants to work with us on that.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept that Labour Members realise that she inherited a difficult task from the previous Government? Metropolitan authorities outside London face substantial difficulties because of the previous Government's attitude to them. When she allocates resources for the coming financial year, will she give careful consideration to the representations that have been made by the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities, which represents metropolitan authorities outside London?

Ms Armstrong: I have received representations from a number of organisations and representatives of local government. They have all put a telling and pressing case to us. I assure my hon. Friend that we have listened to the points raised, and that we shall take them into consideration. We made a commitment in our manifesto to a fairer settlement this year. Hon. Members will be able to judge for themselves in the week beginning 1 December.

Mr. Burstow: Before the Minister next meets the Local Government Association, will she and the Secretary of

State give an undertaking that, at the time of the announcement of the settlement, they will publish figures that show the real impact of the grant settlement and the capping rules, rather than adopt the smoke-and-mirror tactics that the previous Government used time and again, and which the Minister always condemned when in opposition?

Ms Armstrong: We shall endeavour to make what is an exceptionally complex system as straightforward as possible. We are also conducting a review of local government finance generally. We want to enable the ordinary council tax payer to understand the system. That is a difficult task, given the complexity of the system that we inherited, but it is one of our aims. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues assisting us in that process.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the election result on 1 May gave her and every Labour Minister the power to do something different? We had massive victories in parts of the country where we never expected them because people were aware of the distribution of money to local authorities, such as the fiddles for Westminster council and the paltry decisions for Labour-controlled authorities. Now that we have the power, and we are not a party of protest, let us ensure that we change those priorities, and that we also get rid of rate capping.

Ms Armstrong: You, Madam Speaker, would not want me to reveal precisely how we have sought to make the system fairer. That will be revealed in time, and I trust that my hon. Friend will note that we have heeded our manifesto and have sought to ensure that the distribution of money is fairer than ever it was under the previous Administration.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that she has just given on pensions? Is she not entirely wrong to say that the pensions tax will have no impact on local authorities? That is what she just said, but what she means is that there will be no actuarial review until 1998. However, the impact of the pensions tax has effect now—it starts now and goes on next year and the year after. Will she reconsider her reply?

Ms Armstrong: The impact of the changes in the Budget will not have effect in local government in the coming year. We have agreed the way forward with local government and the Local Government Association, and they are perfectly happy with what has been suggested. They know that there is going to be a review of the actuarial position over the next year, and we have said that we will take it into account when deciding next year's settlement.

Mr. Watts: In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's having said that he wanted to help coal mining areas, can we expect any improvement in the standard spending assessments for those areas, bearing in mind the fact that some of them have the worst SSAs in the country?

Ms Armstrong: I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until he sees the settlement. We have made it absolutely clear that this is a very difficult year for local government


because we inherited such a mess. Because it is such an important matter, it cannot be sorted out over night. There is an incredible deficit which local government knows must be tackled. We are determined to tackle the dreadful state in which the previous Administration put local government and to make sure that local government is able to determine how to meet the needs of the population.

Advance Corporation Tax

Mr. Townend: What assessment he has made of the estimates made by local authorities of the costs to them in 1998–99 from the changes to advance corporation tax.[14847]

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Local Government Association, with the assistance of the United Kingdom steering committee on local authority pensions and my Department, is conducting a survey of local government pension scheme administering authorities to assess the impact of Budget tax changes on their pension funds, both for the current financial year and at 1 April 1999. The results will be available shortly.

Mr. Townend: Would the Minister be interested to learn that I have a letter from the director of finance of East Riding council, which says that in 1998–99 the additional contribution required will be £2.55 million? If that contribution is delayed until the following year, a further £75,000 will be needed every year. How does the Minister expect my council to find the cash? Are the Government going to increase the revenue support grant by £2.55 million, or will they expect the poor council tax payer to shoulder the burden of the first Labour Budget and another Labour tax increase?

Mr. Raynsford: When the figures are analysed in detail, the hon. Gentleman will find that he has referred to the gross costs—no account has been taken of any off-setting savings. A net figure will be necessary before an informed conclusion can be reached. The contribution of local government employers was fixed in 1995 for the four-year period to 1999. There are no powers to change contributions during that period. The impact of the changes, to which I referred earlier, and offsetting savings will be taken fully into account by the Government when we have received the full response to the survey from the Local Government Association. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing said, we have already made it clear that we will take full account of that when assessing financial contributions for 1999–2000 and years beyond.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Barnes: What representations he has recently received concerning opencast mining planning policy in England; and if he will make a statement.[14848]

Mr. Raynsford: My Department has received a large number of representations in response to the consultation paper on opencast mining planning policy, which we issued on 30 July. In the light of responses to that

consultation, the Government will decide what changes to policy guidance could and should be implemented in interim planning guidance.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that we have had more than enough opencast mining in north-east Derbyshire, and that we are currently fighting off three proposals—at Avenue Cokeworks, the Breck and junction 29? Would it not help us tremendously if the planning guidance notes contained a presumption against opencast mining—as was promised in the preamble to the 10 points that Labour issued at the general election? Will we be living up to our commitment?

Mr. Raynsford: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government acted very swiftly to give effect to our manifesto commitments and issued a consultation paper on possible changes to mineral planning guidance. We have had 380 responses to that consultation, and consultation in Wales is still not complete. We are therefore analysing carefully the responses before deciding what changes may be appropriate in interim planning guidance. We shall take appropriate action. I assure him that, since the Government have come to power, no further opencast mining applications have been approved.

London Underground

Mr. Clifton-Brown: What proposals he has for the future of London Underground.[14873]

Mr. Simon Hughes: What is his policy on (a) privatising London Transport and (b) London Transport fares.[14874]

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Today is the 10th anniversary of the King's Cross disaster. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to remember the victims of that terrible night, and, with gratitude, the heroism of the emergency services, who worked with such courage in their attempts to reduce the terrible toll.
We are developing our manifesto proposals to improve the London Underground through a public-private partnership. We have ruled out wholesale privatisation. London Transport fares are the statutory responsibility of London Transport, which has to strike a balance between keeping public transport affordable and raising revenue for investment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I preface my question by whole-heartedly endorsing everything that the Minister has said about the 10-year anniversary of the King's Cross disaster, and pay a sincere tribute to the members of the emergency services who fought so bravely that night to contain the fire and reduce the loss of life.
As the Government have introduced an integrated transport system, it is essential that we encourage people to leave their motor cars at home and use the London Underground system. If the Government are intent on that action, will the Minister encourage the London Underground executive to keep fares at or below inflation over the next few years?

Ms Jackson: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has already recognised the major improvements


that the Government have made in an integrated transport system. I am somewhat surprised that he does not welcome the lowest average increase—merely 1 per cent. over the rate of inflation—in the past decade. Under a Conservative Administration, that decade—for year upon year upon year—was marked by neglect of London Underground.

Mr. Hughes: Do the Minister and her colleagues accept that the strongest reason imaginable for retaining majority public-sector control of London Underground is the King's Cross tragedy and the need for parliamentary accountability by Ministers for the safety of the capital city's public transport system? Will she confirm that the Government have ruled out not only total privatisation but majority privatisation? If not, why not?

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have made a commitment not to go down the road of wholesale privatisation. We are examining the proposals of the financial advisers Price Waterhouse on the best way to proceed to ensure the future of London Underground but, whatever decision is taken, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, the House and London that safety and the improvement of safety will be a priority.

Ms Perham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the state of the underground was an important issue in my constituency and throughout London during the general election? Is she also aware how much the Government's determination to secure the future of London Underground is welcome in my constituency, which relies on eight Central line stations?

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend expresses a sentiment that is shared across London on the importance of our underground system in the creation of a properly integrated public transport system for this great capital city. Both I and my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the support that we are receiving from Londoners in our attempt to ensure that the underground is fit for them and for the 21st century.

Sir Norman Fowler: I begin by associating myself entirely with the Minister's words about King's Cross, which was a terrible night that we all remember.
On future policy, does she recognise that Railtrack plans to spend £10 billion on investment, including safety investment, over the next years, and that the rail operating companies plan to spend £2 billion on new trains and rolling stock? Does that not show the success of rail privatisation and the way forward for London Underground?

Ms Jackson: So they should, given that £1.8 billion of public money is going into the railway system.

Trunk Roads

Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on investment in the trunk road network. [14875]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Capital expenditure on the trunk road network is planned to be some £1.4 billion in the current financial year,

which includes investment in renewing roads and bridges. Investment plans for future years will depend on the roads review and the comprehensive spending review.

Mrs. Winterton: As an efficient economy needs an efficient transport infrastructure, does the Minister realise that, if the Government proceed with the moratorium on future road building, business will pay the increasing cost of continuing congestion?

Dr. Strang: I can only assume that that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Government's position. The hon. Lady is surely aware of the road schemes that we have announced and I am sure that she appreciates that we are carrying out a thorough review of the trunk road programme, as we promised during the general election.

Mr. Home Robertson: I know that my right hon. Friend, of all people, will understand the importance of road links between England and the rest of the United Kingdom. Is he aware that the long single-carriageway section of the A 1 through Northumberland is a serious handicap to both the local and the national economy, including the whole of the east of England and Scotland? Will he bear that in mind during the review?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, even against a background of the cuts that have been made in the roads programme over the years, and the growing recognition that we cannot continue to build more and more roads to meet the projected growth in traffic, real investment is needed in the existing network, including the Al.

Mr. Chope: The Minister refers to cuts in the roads programme. Does he remember that, this time last year, his party condemned the Conservative Government for not having kept more schemes in the road programme? Does he agree that it would be folly for this country to cut roads investment when our competitors throughout Europe are spending more?

Dr. Strang: No, I cannot accept that. We all know that, under the Conservatives, the road schemes were decided on not by objective appraisal, but by Treasury diktat. That is why we are looking thoroughly into which roads to build. We make no apology for that. We promised it in the manifesto. We are considering accessibility, safety, economic development and environmental impact.

Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the existing road network is neglected and worsening, with roads not repaired? The Government have inherited a major problem, and a lot of money will be needed to bring our roads up to standard.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There can be no doubt that the maintenance of our roads has been neglected, particularly the basic network. It is vital that we continue capital investment to ensure the adequate maintenance of our roads.

Road Transport

Mr. John M. Taylor: When he next plans to meet representatives of the British Road Federation to discuss road transport issues. [14876]

Mr. Prescott: I met representatives of the British Road Federation and other transport organisations at a seminar to discuss freight issues on 29 October and on other occasions. My Department has held a number of meetings with the BRF and other organisations as part of the current roads review and to discuss the integrated transport policy.

Mr. Taylor: As the Secretary of State has had the advantage of hearing the opinion of the federation, will he confirm that the Birmingham northern relief road will retain the utmost priority in his roads programme?

Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made it clear to the House that we intend to continue with the Birmingham northern relief road. It is in the programme and dates are being set. It is part of the strategic network and we have decided to continue with building it.

Mr. Blizzard: In the process of integrating our transport system with Europe, will my right hon. Friend recognise the important role of east coast ports such as Lowestoft, in my constituency? Does he accept that we need to improve the way in which those ports are linked to the trunk road system?

Mr. Prescott: Those are some of the strategic decisions that we have to make. To be fair, there has been a programme for some decades giving higher priority to the development of roads to ports. My Hull constituency benefited from that with the M62. We are bearing in mind those important strategic freight considerations.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In view of the comments from the Opposition Front Bench a few moments ago, no doubt the Secretary of State will wish to remind the British Road Federation that the Conservative party made the biggest cuts in history in this country's roads programme. Will he also tell the federation that the Government will accept the national road traffic reduction targets proposed in a current private Member's Bill?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, we have talked to those organisations about all the aspects that are in our minds. Traffic reduction is crucial. An integrated transport system is about finding out whether we can give more priority to the movement of freight on our roads by better management of the road system. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Tories, who have clearly forgotten that they were in power for 18 years.

Mr. Leslie: Will my right hon. Friend also discuss with the British Road Federation the welcome input on environmental impact and an integrated transport strategy

in the roads review? Will he ask the federation its opinion of the Bingley relief road in my constituency, which meets environmental and integrated transport criteria?

Mr. Prescott: How did I know that that would come up? We are considering that in the roads review. When it is complete, my right hon. Friend will give his final statement to the House.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will discuss with the federation what has been described as a "parking blitz" on London, including draconian restrictions and sharp rises in parking charges? Does he accept that a car is still essential for many?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, the car is still an essential component of movement, and it certainly will be. We are asking people to use them less and to use public transport more.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Get to the point.

Mr. Prescott: I am coming to the point.
Parking charges are being advocated by business as one way to deal with London's problems. We are looking into those proposals, and at a range of issues to be considered in an integrated transport system that would encourage more people to go on public transport and to use their cars less. That is essential to ensure the necessary environmental changes that will be agreed at Kyoto in December.

Rail Engines

Mrs. Dunwoody: How many American-manufactured engines are awaiting the granting of a safety case for use in British railways. [14877]

Ms Glenda Jackson: About 250 freight locomotives are on order from the United States of America. The first are expected to be delivered to English, Scottish and Welsh Railways early next year. They will require both approval by the Health and Safety Executive and acceptance by Railtrack's new rolling stock acceptance board. That cannot be completed until the first locomotives have been delivered and tested.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but she will be aware that this is not simply a question of resupplying existing rolling stock. In my constituency, we make the best railway engines in the world, and we certainly repair them even better; under privatisation, that is essential. Will my hon. Friend therefore bear in mind the need, before we start importing other nations' rolling stock wholesale, to consider carefully the ability of British manufacturers and, above all, of British workers, to provide the best railway engines for our railway system?

Ms Jackson: I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend's remarks, but equally she will appreciate the fact that a commercial decision was taken by a private company. Unlike franchisees, EWS does not enjoy special rights granted by Government. None the less, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the opportunity presented by


EWS's order for 2,500 wagons, which will be constructed at the old Adtranz works in York, thus providing 300 additional jobs for British workers.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that, in my constituency, we would welcome some new rolling stock, whether it were made in America, in Britain or anywhere else? Will she discuss the matter with Connex South Central, which is still operating ancient slam-door stock, so as to ensure that we have some modern rolling stock that will encourage more people off the roads and on to the railways?

Ms Jackson: We strongly endorse the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that I have regular meetings not only with the train operating companies but with the rolling stock companies, and that we are as concerned as he is to ensure that the vast amounts of public money that go into our railway system produce a high-quality public service.

Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, for the first time for about 50 years, we are seeing an increase in rail freight? Is not the reason why EWS orders locomotives from the United States the fact that the British locomotive industry has not made a genuine rail freight locomotive since the days of steam, whether in Crewe or anywhere else?

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend highlights the fact that, as I believe, the last order for engines in this country was made in 1980. For almost two decades, the Conservative party totally ignored the major contribution that could be made not only to the economy but to the environment by greater movement of freight on our railways. In common with my hon. Friend, I welcome the changes that are being introduced into the freight industry.

Mr. Malins: Does the Minister know why or how leaves on a railway line can apparently render the whole line non-working? Can the Government suggest a remedy? Connex South Central could not get a train into London from Surrey today, because of leaves on the line. Is there an explanation?

Mr. Skinner: New Labour, new leaves.

Ms Jackson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. As I am sure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is aware, the basic reason is the fact that I mentioned in my response to the previous question—the Conservative party's complete failure, in almost two decades in office, to invest adequately in our railway system. Its only answer was to break up an integrated railway system, and £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money is now going into that railway system.
My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport instituted a review of the existing powers of the regulator under the new railway system. If it is deemed by the Government that the regulator requires additional powers to ensure that the highest possible quality of service is provided to the travelling public, that is what we will introduce.

Concessionary Travel

Mr. Patrick Hall: If he will make a statement on the Government's support for concessionary travel and community transport schemes. [14878]

Ms Glenda Jackson: Concessionary travel schemes are a matter for local authorities. On community transport, my Department provides grant to the Community Transport Association's information and advice service, and to the rural transport development fund, administered by the Rural Development Commission.

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware of the many concerns expressed by my constituents in Bedford, especially pensioners, at the proposal of the Conservative-controlled Bedfordshire county council to cease funding the concessionary fares scheme in Bedfordshire from next spring. Does she share the concerns of those people, and will she join me in asking the local authorities in Bedfordshire to work together as constructively as possible to ensure the continued safe existence of the concessionary fares and dial-a-ride schemes in my constituency, which are so important to the disabled and pensioners and so good for the environment, public transport and the local economy?

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that all such decisions are matters for local authorities, but I have little doubt that, with his commitment to his constituency and his constituents, he will do all in his power to ensure that the relevant authorities are brought together to discuss this issue.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can the hon. Lady say whether, in her guidelines to the consultants who will be studying the future of London Underground, she has made it a requirement that the concessionary fare for old-age pensioners will be retained by the London boroughs? If not, from next year, old-age pensioners and other members of the travelling public will face diabolical fare increases, well above inflation. To be candid, something needs to be done urgently to put London Transport to rights.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a decision on the way forward for London Underground has still to be taken in the light of the options being examined by the Government's financial advisers. On concessionary fares, he does no service to the pensioners of London by raising the possibility that they will be lost. As he well knows, the concessionary fare scheme is funded by all boroughs, which have managed to fund it every year.

Rail Regulation

Mr. Allan: What steps the Government are taking to meet their commitment to establish more effective and accountable regulation by the Rail Regulator. [14879]

Dr. Strang: On 6 November, I announced three measures designed to strengthen railways regulation. The measures—new objectives for the franchising director, the publication of new guidelines on railway investment and a framework for co-operation between Ministers and the Rail Regulator—are the first fruits


of our on-going review of railway regulation. We are committed to establishing a new strategic rail authority on which we will publish proposals next spring, linked to our White Paper on integrated transport policy.

Mr. Allan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many members of the public are put off using the rail system by their inability to get accurate information and the right ticket? Does he therefore regret that the franchising director appears to feel unable to publish the full details of the survey that he carried out recently into the mis-selling of tickets?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right to be critical of the present arrangements. The interim package that I announced is a significant step forward. Information is vital, but we shall need legislation to put things right.

Mr. Grocott: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's strategy of moving both freight and passenger traffic from road to rail wherever possible, but does he agree that that policy is made immeasurably more difficult

by the ludicrous fragmentation of our rail network that occurred under the previous Government, which makes any coherent transport policy harder to apply?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is correct. That is why we have set out clear objectives for the franchising director. It is very important that the franchising director talks to local authorities. If we are to invest more in the network, build the new stations and get more freight on the railways, which is vital, we need a new start. That is where we are going.

Mrs. Laing: The Minister's answer makes it clear that the Government, by their actions in changing the Rail Regulator and the franchising authority, are building on the success of the previous Government's privatisation policy. It is therefore implicit that they are endorsing railway privatisation; why will they not do the same for London Underground, which is so much in need of further investment?

Dr. Strang: Where has the hon. Lady been for the past three years? Is she unaware of all the reports? Does she not appreciate the fact that, under the current arrangements, an operating company can cancel trains for months on end without the franchising director being able even to fine it?

Egypt (British Citizens)

Mr. Michael Howard: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the attack on British citizens in Egypt on 17 November.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): On the morning of 17 November, six armed men went on a killing spree on the west bank of the River Nile near Luxor. At least 60 foreign tourists are reported to have been killed. Six Britons were confirmed to be among them. Three Egyptian policemen and the six gunmen also died. On behalf of the Government and, I am sure, of all hon. Members, I extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families bereaved by this atrocity and to those injured.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Mubarak of Egypt yesterday afternoon and expressed his condolences and our support in the fight against terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed our condemnation of this barbarous act yesterday.
My noble Friend Baroness Symons is discussing the situation with the Egyptian Minister of Tourism, who is currently visiting London. The British embassy in Cairo and my Department have taken urgent action to discover the extent of the atrocity and whether there are any other Britons among the dead or injured. The British consul in Cairo has gone to Luxor to assist with repatriation of the British victims and to advise British visitors and holiday companies. There is also a consular representative at Cairo airport to assist those Britons who wish to leave the country.
The consular division of my Department is keeping its travel advice constantly under review. In April 1996, following the attack on Greek tourists in Egypt, the travel advice stated that security could not be guaranteed. In March this year, that advice was amended to recommend that travellers should respect advice on their safety from local security authorities. That reflected the fact that during the previous 11 months attacks in Egypt had been only on the security forces.
In September this year, following the attack on German tourists, the advice was strengthened to recommend that security could not be guaranteed. Yesterday afternoon, we issued revised travel advice, advising against visiting the Luxor area. Today, that advice has been further updated, to the effect that British visitors are advised to exercise great caution over visiting upper Egypt. Meanwhile, they are strongly advised to avoid the Luxor area until further notice. Visitors to all other parts of Egypt are advised to be vigilant and to respect any advice from the local security authorities.
In London, we have set up an emergency response team to deal with inquiries, which has already received around 1,000 calls. The team is also liaising with tour operators and the Association of British Travel Agents.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. I should like to associate Her Majesty's Opposition with the sympathy that he expressed to the families of the victims of this brutal attack and also the sympathy that he extended to the Government of Egypt.
There are reports that a Swiss medical team has been dispatched to Egypt. Are there any plans for the United Kingdom to offer medical assistance to the Egyptian authorities and the victims of this outrage? The hon. Gentleman was right to condemn the attack in unequivocal terms. What active steps do Her Majesty's Government propose to take, to help the Government of Egypt to counter such attacks? What progress has been made in following through the recommendations of the ministerial conference on terrorism, which I attended in Paris in July last year? In particular, has the recommendation for the setting up of a directory of competencies on counter-terrorism, which was proposed by the previous Government and accepted in Paris, been implemented?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his questions. I can confirm that no request for British medical assistance has been received, but were it to be, the British Government would, of course, do what they could to assist the Egyptian authorities. I can also tell him that steps are being taken with the Egyptian Government—there is a constant dialogue to identify where there are terrorist dangers. As I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his previous responsibilities, this Government will be doing everything they can to work with the Egyptian Government to minimise risk.
Again, I can reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that every effort will be made to counter international terrorism at every international forum. It is a top priority of the Government; and it will continue to be so.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I should also like to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy and condolence voiced by the Minister and by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
While the causes of fundamentalism, which gives rise to atrocities of this type, are extremely difficult to ascertain, does the Minister accept that the efforts of President Mubarak and the Egyptian Government to control fundamentalism are by no means made easy by the fact that there is, as yet, no lasting, just peace in the middle east, and the Oslo agreements have not been implemented either in fact or in spirit? What efforts will the Government make—particularly as Mr. Netanyahu is apparently in London again this week and the Foreign Secretary met Madeleine Albright last week—to impress on both the United States and the Government of Israel that fundamentalism in the countries of the middle east will be better controlled when there is a just and lasting peace for the Palestinians?

Mr. Henderson: There is no excuse of any kind for the atrocity that occurred in Egypt yesterday—no justification. Having said that, the Government will continue to do what they can in the various international forums to bring pressure on those involved in the middle east peace process to make progress towards at least an interim solution that can, I hope, reduce tensions.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman may know, a meeting was held last week between my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Netanyahu. At that meeting, it was stressed that there


should be full implementation of the interim agreement, especially provisions relating to Gaza air and sea ports and transit arrangements for Palestinians between Gaza and the west bank; that substantial further deployments of Israeli troops from the west bank should take place; and that time out on settlement building and unilateral action in Jerusalem, which prejudices final status talks, should also be given the highest priority. We shall continue to press those points at other international forums.

Ms Chris McCafferty: Is my hon. Friend aware that three generations of one family in my constituency—mother, grandmother and five-year-old daughter—died in the tragic events at Luxor? I welcome his message of condolence to the family, and wish to associate myself with it. I also welcome his unequivocal condemnation of terrorism when it is so fanatical and destructive. Equally, it should be said that the vast majority of Egyptian people are democratic and peace-loving, so I welcome the statement of support for the Government of Egypt in their determination to maintain democratic government and secular democracy.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments: I am sure that the whole House would wish to repeat its horror at the events that have caused such huge grief to her constituents and constituency. There is a continual dialogue with the Egyptian Government, and one of the important issues discussed is to agree with the Egyptian Government what measures can be taken to ensure that democracy is reinforced at every opportunity in a difficult situation in Cairo. That is this Government's top priority, and we have taken the opportunity on several recent occasions to express it to our Egyptian friends.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Minister aware of the widespread shock and grief in Swanley today that a dream holiday for two pensioners should have ended in murder? Does he think that there is any general case for reviewing the way in which travel advice is issued to tour operators by the Foreign Office?

Mr. Henderson: I repeat my condolences to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and constituency, who have also faced terrible tragedy. Advice is given to travellers, travel agents and travel companies on a regular basis and a wide area of interest. In most circumstances, the degree of risk is explained to those involved, but ultimately it is for those who wish to travel to make a decision based on the information that they receive. It is my Department's intention to make sure that they are furnished with every piece of information that might be of help to them.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The Minister will know that this is not the first time that Islamic fundamentalist movements have organised a terrorist incident, and he will know that it will not be the last. Is the Foreign Office developing a pool of expertise—that is, people who really understand what motivates those groups and who have studied the background to them—to meet that threat in future so that, as and when, inevitably, we are faced with more incidents of this nature in the western world, we shall be equipped with the Foreign Office expertise to deal with them?

Mr. Henderson: I can reassure my hon. Friend that my Department is fully briefed, not only on the factual

situation in those areas of the world, but on political opinions expressed by the widest range of sources. I have every confidence in my Department's ability to brief Ministers and to provide advice on which the people of this nation can base their decisions.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister accept that while I agree with him about terrorism, I endorse the views of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the peace process and the difficulties that that makes for Egypt? Does he agree that Egypt holds a pivotal position in the middle east and that the Egyptian Government deserve whatever support we can give? Is he aware that, from time to time, we have been able to provide them with training from the Ministry of Defence? Will he examine whether there is a case for reviewing the training that is currently given, to see whether more training—or some of the more sophisticated techniques on which we are great experts—could be offered to our Egyptian friends?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I assure him that they are well taken. His points constituted part of our dialogue with the Egyptian Government. Where we can provide assistance, we would want to do so.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to associate myself with the sympathy that has been expressed, and with the Minister's views on terrorism. Luxor is a fine place with fine people, many of whom are impoverished. They will be devastated by what has taken place and its effect on tourism. After considering the terrorist situation, will the Government examine how help may be given to the people and economy of Egypt? Do the Government recognise that Islam was not a key link in this act? It is like the link that exists between some terrorist groups and Christianity in the western world. Most of Islam abhors such acts.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am sure that it is true that the vast majority of the Islamic world condemns this atrocity in the same way as we do. He should address his remarks on assistance to Egypt to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, but assistance is part of the regular dialogue between our two countries. I am sure that that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: While it is right to support the policies of the Egyptian Government that are designed to root out terrorism, may I support the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about the importance of pushing forward the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians? That is critical if there is to be an end, or at least a reduction, of tension and of the underlying support for Islamic fundamentalism. It is important that, wherever possible, we try to encourage regimes in the middle east to make themselves more accountable and representative, because that also tends to diminish the support that underpins Islamic fundamentalism in the region.

Mr. Henderson: 1 agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, which is essentially the same as that of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife


(Mr. Campbell). The Government will take every action to try to push forward the peace process. I again refer to last week's important meetings between my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Is the Minister aware that, over the past decade, hundreds of thousands of British people, including me, have visited Luxor without any threat to our lives, and that Egypt depends greatly on international tourism? Is he also aware that the domestic roots of Islamic terrorism go back many years and that it is a little glib to associate this incident simply with the current difficulties of the middle east peace process? Does he agree that it is not helpful to try to blame the Israeli Government, directly or indirectly, for the actions of a small group of fanatical terrorists who do not represent any large number of people in the middle east?

Mr. Henderson: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is less important for us to attribute blame for inactivity in the peace process and more important for us to encourage the Israeli Government, Arab Governments and our Palestinian friends to push forward the process so that general tension is relaxed, enabling progress to be made towards a more permanent peace. That is the relevance of the current situation to the peace process.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Minister agree that it is important that responsibility for an atrocity of this type falls solely on those who caused it, not on anyone else? Will he acknowledge that the Foreign Office does all that is humanly possible to give the best possible travel advice, and that its advice is regarded throughout the world as of a very high quality, regularly updated?
When I had some responsibility for consular affairs in the Foreign Office in 1994, I visited Egypt to see what the Egyptian Government were doing to protect United Kingdom tourists. Does the Minister accept that it was obvious that the Government of Egypt were doing all that was possible to protect UK and other tourists? Does he agree that it is very important that we do not allow the people or the Government of Egypt to be isolated now? It is one of the terrorists' objectives to bring about such isolation, and if we allow the Government or the people of Egypt to be isolated or more isolated as a consequence of the tragedy, the terrorists will partly have succeeded.

Mr. Henderson: It is clear from the response of the whole House, which I believe reflects the view in the country, that all of us want to do what we can to help the Egyptian Government to improve security, so that foreign tourists can travel in Egypt and relax. As I mentioned in my response to some other hon. Members, there is a constant dialogue with the Egyptian Government on such matters, and if there is any way in which we can help them to improve their security, we shall do so.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-

Sussex (Mr. Soames), the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), does the Minister accept that the visual image of Israelis building settlements in Palestinian territory is the root cause of this problem, and that it is that image that inflames the fundamentalists' cause?
Does the Minister accept that, ghastly though the tragedy at Luxor was, it occurred on the edge of what is really Greater Luxor, some distance from the city on the other side of the Nile? Can he reassure British holidaymakers in residence at Luxor now that the town is comparatively safe, and that we are talking about the small area of temples in the west, up against the hill?

Mr. Henderson: The advice that I gave in my original remarks was that the area of Luxor is not safe and persons travelling should be extremely wary about entering that territory.
I repeat that there is no justification at all, under any circumstances, for the action that was taken yesterday and the horror that it caused to families and citizens of this country and others. If one were to ask an analytical historian the cause of troubles in the middle east area over the centuries, one would be unlikely to receive one response, as there are many approaches. Obviously, however, it does not help for the peace process to be logjammed, and something must be done to get things moving, so that people in these areas have greater hope and reassurance.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister agree that the worst outcome would be for the tourist industry in Egypt to be destroyed? Does he further agree with my rough calculation that, even in the wake of yesterday's appalling and tragic events, a visitor to Egypt is 30 times more likely to die of natural causes than to be involved in a terrorist incident? Will his advice to travel companies reflect what is statistically likely to happen to people?
Does the Minister agree that the British people must stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends in Egypt against terrorism—a scourge that, unfortunately, we have both endured—and that the Foreign Office must be as robust as possible in its advice to tour operators and individuals, so that the risks are understood but encouragement is not given to unnecessary panic, which seems to have happened this morning?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no panic reaction by my Department, but we have a responsibility to provide advice to British tourists on the dangers that they may face when they travel. Our assessment is that there are serious dangers at the moment in Egypt, and there have been for some time. I explained in specific terms in my initial remarks what those were. We shall continue to monitor the situation day by day, and continue to give the best advice that can be given. Nevertheless, we shall want to help to promote tourism to Egypt, and that will be a continuing item in the dialogue with the Egyptian Government.

Personal Pensions (Mis-selling)

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a further statement on the mis-selling of personal pensions.
On 9 July, I reported to the House on the progress being made by individual firms with most cases to put right in what is possibly the most extensive scandal ever seen in our financial services industry. Each month subsequently, I have published the latest facts available to me. Today I have placed in the Library further information about the progress being made.
We are now seeing positive results from the pressure applied since this Government were elected. In May, only 2 per cent. of cases had been compensated. Now there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of people receiving compensation—proof that, in the cold glare of publicity, firms can raise their game and make progress. However, more could and should be done.
Before I go into more detail, it might assist the House if I recall the events that led to this scandal. The Social Security Act 1986, a much-vaunted piece of legislation by the previous Government, encouraged millions of people to change sound pension arrangements for something different, in the belief that they would be more secure in later life. Some will be; not all, however. For some, the change meant a future less secure, not more so.
Between 1988 and 1994, life insurance companies, independent financial advisers, banks and building societies, through vigorous marketing, sold more than 5 million personal pensions. It soon became clear that that meant disaster for many, including hundreds of thousands in the nursing, teaching and other professions, who had been persuaded against their best interests to abandon the safety of their occupational schemes.
The truth is that many firms did not abide by the regulatory rules then in force, requiring them to give suitable advice. Among those firms failing their customers were many household names. The Securities and Investments Board in 1994 took the unprecedented step of requiring firms to review the cases of those most likely to have suffered. The scale of the problem can now be seen. Some 600,000 cases are currently being reviewed, and on current indications the cost of compensation will be at least £2 billion.
Deadlines were set for completing the most urgent reviews. Those were well missed, and the previous Government stood by and let that happen. On 14 May this year, I met heads of 24 firms, responsible for about three quarters of the total of cases. I left them in no doubt about our determination to ensure that those wasted years would be redeemed.
Most of the big firms are making headway—indeed, some of them have made large strides—but far too many firms, from large insurance companies to small independent advisers, have been far too slow to act, and some have hardly even started. They have failed to grasp the severity of the situation.
The experience of the past few months shows that pressure from the Government, the regulators and the public is working. I intend to maintain that pressure until the review is completed. In May, the regulator set hard

but realistic new targets for all the firms concerned, and made it clear that there would be robust disciplinary action. For most firms, the first of those targets is to complete 90 per cent. of the most urgent cases by the end of next month. Beyond that, they must complete all their priority reviews by the end of next year, at the very latest. When they reach that target, I shall remove their names from the list that I publish each month—although they must continue to update me on their progress.
The recent reprimands and fines against firms such as the Prudential, Friends Provident and DBS have attracted wide publicity. This disciplinary rigour will continue. However, the Government and the regulators recognise that, in respect of some companies at least, those sanctions may not be enough—they are not galvanising the laggards. For them, a stronger armoury of sanctions is required. The Personal Investment Authority is working to achieve that through individual registration, and the new regime will come into force as soon as possible next year.
Once that regime is in place, sanctions can be fine-tuned to apply pressure directly on those responsible. Individual directors, managers or sales people found to be at fault will face the prospect of fines, public reprimands or restrictions upon the type of work in which they may be involved. In extreme cases, they could be expelled from the industry.
The public have a right to know about these failures. At present, the PIA has the power to require firms to advertise their misconduct and the grounds on which they have been disciplined. That power has been kept in reserve, but there is now every reason to use it to the full. The PIA is currently examining ways of ensuring that customers are informed directly of a firm's failings. The Government believe that the time has come for a tougher range of sanctions to come into play. The only way for a firm or an individual to avoid disciplinary action is to avoid the conduct that warrants it.
While putting right the wrongs of pensions mis-selling has been the priority, the Government have not lost sight of the fact that the financial services industry is central to our economic prosperity, and to the welfare of millions of people. However, its prosperity requires the confidence of the public. That is why the industry must act quickly to restore that confidence. If there is continuing evidence that some firms have refused to learn the lessons of the past few years and are still harming investors, we shall act to clean up the industry.
To this end, the PIA has the authority to intervene on behalf of the public and require that a firm ceases to market or sell some or all of its investment products for a period, and puts its house in order. Firms whose compliance with the regulator's requirements is so poor that investors are put at risk can effectively be put out of business. The PIA will use that power wherever it is warranted. Candidates for that action will include any independent financial adviser or any other firms found to be using the review process as a foot in the door to sell more products.
The regulators and the Government also have powers to protect the public by taking action to exclude senior people who are not fit and proper from involvement in financial services business. Those who are not fit and proper can be removed from their posts—and we shall see that they are removed. In the years ahead, the Government plan to introduce legislation that will have a profound


impact on the financial services environment. Lessons learned from the pensions mis-selling episode will be in all our minds as we go about that task in relation to stakeholder pensions and individual savings accounts, and as we reform the regulatory regime itself.
So far as pensions policy is concerned, we will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government. We will not set people up to be fleeced. We anticipate that future decisions on the regulatory approval of stakeholder pension schemes will take into account the conduct and the corporate governance of all those involved. That would, of course, include their record in settling cases of mis-sold personal pensions. 
I hope that, through the combination of measures that I have outlined to the House today, we can ensure that never again will the public be exposed to such a scandal as that which I have described, and that those who have suffered can now look for speedy redress. Justice for them has been too long delayed: this Government are determined to ensure that it is delivered.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Economic Secretary accept for a start that we on the Conservative Benches entirely share her desire to rectify the consequences of pensions mis-selling as speedily as possible, consistent only with the proper discharge of the wider responsibility of insurance companies for the sound conduct of their business. We believe that the proper approach is through the regulatory mechanisms that we largely put in place—every one of those to which she referred were already in place. Those actions were taken further by Angela Knight, who was then a Minister in the previous Government.
Will the Economic Secretary acknowledge that, although the targets had been set by the regulator, most of these are for completion next month at the earliest; that neither she nor we are yet in a position to say that most individuals or companies have failed to meet their current targets; and that many will in fact meet them?
Will the hon. Lady also concede that the proper approach to the problem of pension mis-selling is through the regulator's steady and objective work, and the progressive use and tightening of the powers of sanction available to him, rather than through an approach that could be described as confessional, based on the naming and shaming of individual companies by a Minister? Does not her role in this increasingly resemble that of a public relations stunt, by a Minister who was herself employed in public relations by the late Robert Maxwell, one of the biggest mis-sellers of all?
Can we have a further assurance from the Economic Secretary that in no case will a company or individual who is likely to be in the frame for her naming and shaming be treated softly on the grounds of any association with, donation to or work for the Labour party or the Government? In particular, is it not interesting that her statement refers to the Prudential Assurance company, of which Peter Davis—he is well known to many of us, too—is chief executive? Is it not odd that she is shaming him while, simultaneously, the Government are prepared to condone him as the leader of the team on welfare to work, dealing with some of the most sensitive and underprivileged members of our society?
More widely, perhaps, will the Economic Secretary accept that, although the mis-selling of some private pensions and personal pensions was wrong and must be rectified, the United Kingdom is in an enviable position internationally, both with the strength of the financial services industry, to which she referred, and with the accumulation of some £650 billion of pension fund assets; and that only today representatives of German banks were reported as pressing their Government to enable the early establishment of what they described as Anglo-Saxon type pension funds?
Will the Economic Secretary acknowledge—it will be the first acknowledgement to come from the Government if she does so—that the present Government's smash and grab raid on pension funds through the pension tax in the sum of £5 billion a year, which they imposed in the last Budget, has cost every pension holder in the land a significant amount of their future pension? To be more specific, does she accept that the average cost to county council pension schemes, three quarters of which were in deficit at the last actuarial revision, is £3.7 million a year?
Will the Economic Secretary also acknowledge that the Government's proposals in the Budget have made opting out from the state earnings-related pension scheme much less attractive, and that, as a result, many people who have taken a personal pension would be better off in the SERPS scheme? Perhaps she will tell me that the Government will commit themselves to a public information programme to explain the implications to people who in effect have been mis-sold a personal pension by the Government. Would that not be a contribution to truth for the pension holder?
Finally, will the hon. Lady explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to give a straight answer to the questions that we have asked him? Is it not, in fact, the Chancellor—who is sitting next to the hon. Lady—whom she should be considering for naming and shaming?

Mrs. Liddell: We have just seen a manifestation of why, when we were elected in May, fewer than 2 per cent. of pensions cases had been dealt with. Under the last Government, there was a complete failure to take into account not just the fact that 600,000 people had been mis-sold personal pensions, but the fact that 18,000 had since died without securing redress. Today, we have seen an Opposition wriggling on the record of their own performance in government. We took the action we did because of our determination to see innocent people receive redress.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Prudential. The Prudential will be dealt with by the regulators as they see fit, but the Government have decided that the structure of regulation needs to be reformed. The hon. Gentleman might have served the House better if he had come to the Dispatch Box and apologised for the performance of the previous Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the guilty people are the insurance company chiefs, many of the guilty people sit on the Opposition Benches? Scores of Tory Members were associated with those companies when the Tory Government were in power, and it was they who believed that market forces could allow people to change their pensions in such a fashion.
I stand up today because I remember when the miners, having ripped their guts out in the pits, saw those pits closed by that lousy Tory Government. Then these people came knocking on their doors—sent by Opposition Members, or their friends—saying, "Transfer your pensions, and you will get more money." The net result is that many of them have lost thousands.
I suggest that, if we do not get all that money back from those insurance companies, we should surcharge that lot over there, because they were instrumental in carrying out the mis-selling.

Mrs. Liddell: I could not have put it better myself. As one who represents a mining constituency—as, indeed, does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—I know the hardship that has been caused to the families of miners, and the great distress that has been caused to, in particular, the widows of miners whose husbands thought that they had left them well provided for, but who now find that they were duped because of actions taken by the last Government.

Mr. Edward Davey: Liberal Democrats welcome today's statement. Many people throughout the country are delighted that the new Government are taking the mis-selling of pensions seriously, although for far too many their action has come too late.
Has the Economic Secretary considered other measures to tackle the problem—for example, the reform of training and of the requirements for professional qualifications in those who are involved in selling financial products such as personal pensions? If the hon. Lady has not considered those measures, has she considered giving such a remit to the new Financial Services Authority, so that, in future, the financial services industry can proceed with confidence, and consumers can buy its products knowing that those who sell them have been properly trained and are competent?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have had extensive discussions about matters relating to training, and about the standards of those who give financial advice. I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) gave some financial advice himself; I wonder whether he is registered to do so.
As for regulatory reform, we intend to look closely at ways of improving the standards of financial advice—and, indeed, the standards of consumer education in relation to financial services products.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: I, too, welcome the statement. I am sure that, like the rest of the House, my hon. Friend will be aware of the public apology made by Peter Davis, the chief executive of the Prudential. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not, actually.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prudential is still failing victims, and is likely to continue to do so, and to miss the targets for next March? What does she plan to do about that?

Mrs. Liddell: It is interesting to note the discomfort that is experienced by Conservative Members when important points are being made about ensuring that people meet targets. The purpose of today's statement is

to concentrate the minds of those who think that the Government are not serious about ensuring that the targets are met. They cannot now be left in any doubt about the seriousness with which the Government and the regulators treat these matters.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The way in which the Minister plays her hand is for her to decide. Is she implying that she is against the principle of the Social Security Act 1986?

Mrs. Liddell: Yes: that is why we are reforming it.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done on this important issue. Will she confirm that the inability of companies to meet their targets for compensation, and the inability of the Conservative party to deal with this matter while in government, has led to many thousands of pensioners dying without receiving any compensation?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, nothing that we have done could not have been done by the previous Government. They failed to take action, because they turned a blind eye to the crisis, despite the fact that everyone knew what was going on. The Conservative party's behaviour is shameful.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Economic Secretary share my concern about recent reports that financial advisers are still advising people to move their savings out of company schemes and into personal plans, to a value of almost £100 million this year? They are mainly people who are approaching retirement age and want access to income draw-down and phased retirement schemes. Potentially huge commissions are involved. Will she undertake to reinforce the work that has been done by the Personal Investment Authority to ensure that there is no phase 2 of this scandal?

Mrs. Liddell: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his expertise in these matters. He makes an important point, which allows me to highlight the fact that, in addition to the 600,000 people in the priority categories who have been mis-sold personal pensions, we estimate that there could be between 1 million and 1.5 million non-priority cases involving younger people who have bought personal pension products. I urge people to check personal pension products to ensure that they have not been mis-sold, so that we do not have a time bomb for the future. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made.

Jacqui Smith: As a teacher in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, I was conscious of the hard sell by many pension companies to try to persuade teachers to move out of what my hon. Friend has described as a good pension scheme, and into a private pension scheme. My hon. Friend has given us some idea of how many people may have been affected, but does she agree with me that there could be even more people than we are currently aware of, because some companies and some sections of the industry are still failing to warn their customers that they may have been mis-sold pensions?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not just companies that are failing to warn their customers that they may have been mis-sold pensions. It is important that people check any material they receive from pension companies. As a result of my statement, I hope that the Personal Investment Authority will insist that marketing material contains details of any penalties that companies have incurred through the mis-selling of personal pensions.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The Minister said that 600,000 cases are being reviewed, out of a total of 5 million. Does that not imply that more than 4 million of those who were sold personal pensions were not damaged as a result of the previous Government's initiative, and that, for some people, personal pensions were a good choice and a benefit? Would the Minister care to contrast that experience with the universal suffering caused by the present Government's manifesto mis-selling, given that they have imposed a pensions tax on every pension scheme?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is an apologist for those who have mis-sold personal pensions. He does not understand the position. The 600,000 who are currently being reviewed are at or near retirement. The point that I made in response to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was that there could be an additional 1 million to 1.5 million younger people who have been mis-sold personal pensions, which is a substantial number out of 5 million. Rather than act as an apologist, the hon. Gentleman should do his bit to ensure that this matter is resolved.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Unlike many of my colleagues, I wish not to praise the Minister but to criticise her, for being too soft on the people running the pensions industry. Will she stop using euphemisms such as "mis-selling", as if it was in some way accidental? Why does she not just describe it as theft, which is a much more accurate description of what actually took place?
Why do Governments continue to be mealy-mouthed when it comes to white-collar crime? In my view, many of the people responsible deserve to be in gaol. If any of my constituents stole an equivalent amount, they would end up in the courts and then in gaol. Why is white-collar crime treated more leniently than other types of crime?
Does the Minister agree that those firms which do not put things right within a very short time should be disqualified from participating in stakeholder pensions and frozen out of the industry altogether as unsuitable? Should not the brand of Cain be stamped across the forehead of their chairmen to ensure that they do not do business in future? That is the only way that the companies will take the Minister's strictures seriously.

Mrs. Liddell: I see that my hon. Friend is behaving with his customary moderation. Indeed, the nicest thing that has been said about me in this episode is that I have been mealy-mouthed.
The action that I am proposing today will guarantee that those responsible for the running of companies involved in mis-selling will themselves pay a penalty if they do not meet the targets and ensure that redress is made.

Mr. John Swinney: I support the Minister's statement but would like to ask two questions. First, when tackling networks like DBS, have the Government considered differentiating between the company or network and individual agents, some of whom will have a clear and commendable record? Secondly, in relation to stakeholder pensions, what consideration have the Government given to providing protection from excessive costs which will have to be borne by the consumer from products to be available for the market?

Mrs. Liddell: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point first. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, may be making a statement about stakeholder pensions soon. I have had lengthy discussions with him about the lessons that have to be learned about the mis-selling of stakeholder pensions.
There have already been fines on networks as a consequence of their failure to meet targets. They have been disciplined by the regulatory authorities. Regulation covers the management practices that networks and, indeed, individual financial advisers have been using. There are many lessons to be learned from that. The regulators are conscious of cases in which discipline may need to be applied; indeed, that discipline has been applied.

Mr. John Smith: As someone who was actively involved in a campaign to discourage people from giving up their occupational pensions for private pensions, I thank my hon. Friend for her statement on behalf of my constituents. Does she share my view that the previous Tory Government were effectively guilty of conspiring to rob millions of British people of large chunks of their life savings, in that they created a climate that encouraged mis-selling and then did absolutely nothing when the problem was discovered?

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's thanks. The Government will really be thanked when all the cases of mis-selling have been resolved. Yes, the climate at the time did encourage it to happen. The devil-may-care, get-rich-quick days of the Thatcher Government certainly encouraged the problems—[Interruption.] As some of my hon. Friends are saying from a sedentary position, some Opposition Front Benchers have a specific responsibility for what happened.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister arrange for discussions to be held with both miners' pension schemes? In the light of the information that she will be given, that 7,000 miners can be identified—their addresses are known, as are their pension shortfalls—will she take quick and severe action, with the regulator, against companies such as TSB and the Prudential, which seem unwilling to set matters right?

Mrs. Liddell: I am conscious of the difficulties that are being experienced in some cases with occupational pension schemes, and I have heard what my hon. Friend has said. There have been some improvements in the information available from occupational schemes


and some companies—for example, the Pearl Assurance—are making their occupational pension scheme databases available, free of charge, to other companies. That is a very useful development.
At the start of this year, however, there were considerable difficulties with occupational pension schemes. Many of those difficulties have been resolved, but I will certainly be vigilant and do what I can to assist with the occupational pension schemes that my hon. Friend mentioned. I have heard the point he has made.

Formula One

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I should stress that it does not deal with a cheap or party political point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If it did, I would not have raised it on an afternoon when the House was bound to be three quarters empty. 
It deals with a subject that will concern hon. Members from both sides of the House, and with a matter that undermines the rules of the House. The matter strikes at the entire purpose—it negates the purpose—of having a Register of Members' Interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Far from being boring, it is very important.
In last Thursday's edition of The Times, there was a report that the Prime Minister had gone to last year's Silverstone grand prix as a guest of formula one, yet had not entered the visit in the Register of Members' Interests. I have checked with the Registrar of Members' Interests, and he stated that the rules of the House are quite clear. The rules are that, if the visit were a gift of hospitality worth more than £215, it should have been entered. I checked with the Silverstone authorities, and they told me that it is likely to cost more than £215 to take only one person to Silverstone, and that it would cost a great deal more than that to take two people or a family.
Since I have been making the investigations, I have discovered that one David Ward—a professional lobbyist employed by the Formula One Association—arranged for the Prime Minister to go to the Silverstone grand prix as a guest of Max Mosley, and that that is when he met Bernie Ecclestone.
Some people will say that the matter is old hat and last week's news. There has, however, been no explanation or discussion of the matter. I seek your advice, Madam Speaker. It seems that all hon. Members—not only Opposition Members—should be given an explanation of why the Register of Members' Interests is not up to date.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, a senior officer of the House whom we employ to deal with such matters. As the hon. Gentleman is also aware, such matters should not be raised on the Floor of the House. He may wish to put the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner

National Health Service (Equity of Funding)

Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up an independent National Health Service Funding Advisory Body charged with the task of ensuring an equitable formula for the funding of local health authorities.
The Bill is relevant to hon. Members from across the country, because its purpose is to deal with the recognised failings of the current formula. Although I support initial ministerial proposals to establish an advisory body that would report next autumn, my Bill would go further by providing a continuing statutory requirement for such a body. Many health authorities—for example, in Cornwall and in Lincolnshire—face unnecessary funding crises, and hon. Members on both sides of the House know that such a crisis could occur in any place and at any time. 
I tabled my Bill because of recent proposals—which are a consequence of projections for a budget-driven crisis for next year and subsequent years—to slash Cornwall's health services. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority must make a £5 million year-on-year saving. The need for such cuts has not only sent a shock wave through the Cornish community and been widely and justifiably derided: it has brought into sharp focus the very funding formula used by the Government in deciding local health authorities' apportionment of NHS funding. Last week, the formula was used in Lancashire, and, in the weeks and months ahead, it will affect other places.
For the benefit of hon. Members, I should perhaps explain a little about Cornwall and its people. Historically, we have had not only the lowest wages in the United Kingdom but very high levels of unemployment, a high cost of living, the highest water rates, and pressure on our housing stock from second and holiday homes. It is a difficult place in which to be poor.
This summer, even after the suffering caused by factory closures, job losses and the failure to obtain adequate investment in Cornwall's economic infrastructure, Cornish people would probably say philosophically, "Well, at least we've got our health." They might also say, "At least we have the national health service," but serious doubts now exist that many parts of Cornwall even have that.
Hospitals in small towns, which have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for specialist and essential equipment, are destined to close. Under the proposals, four non-acute community hospitals would close. Up to 130 beds would be axed, and 400 people would lose their jobs. Essential casualty services would be downgraded. If the House thinks that I am angry, it is wrong—I am very, very angry. I am angry with my people for being so good about the cuts, for never wanting to make a fuss and always being grateful. They do not want to complain, and, until now, they have never properly expressed the deep injustice they all feel.
Before hon. Members make the often felt but rarely stated assumption that we should not complain because we live in a beautiful environment in Cornwall, I ask them to stop and think. The beauty of a rural or any other environment should not mean that its people are a soft touch for hard decisions.
The hard decisions we face in Cornwall would involve, in some places, the complete removal of health services that most other parts of the country take for granted. They would mean damage to the health, well-being and care of many vulnerable people, especially older people and their carers, and the needless loss of life.
I shall explain. One of the proposals would involve the serious downgrading of casualty services in the small general acute hospital in Penzance in my constituency. I must declare an interest, because my wife is a nurse there. However, she does not work in the casualty service, in which an average of 18,000 to 20,000 new cases are seen each year.
Every year, there are many cardiac arrests, approximately 30 cases of cardiac arrhythmia, 10 road traffic accidents—after which, following triage by paramedics, patients are admitted for emergency treatment—10 ruptured aortic aneurysms, and 30 cases of peritonitis with septicaemia. While some of those cases might make it to the only casualty service left, which is nearly 30 miles to the east, higher mortality rates will inevitably result. That will mean more deaths.
Yes, people will die as a result of the cuts, and no one should be in any doubt about that. What good will a beautiful environment be to those who die because their local casualty service has been taken away? I am sure that hon. Members will understand that that is a serious matter. I want local people to get angry, and to get even. They should get angry about the threat to local services, and get an even deal from the funding mechanism.
The present formula does not take proper account of the heavy pressure from holidaymakers who use accident and emergency services in the area. It fails to recognise that the market forces mechanism cannot cope with the problems of a low wage area. Above all, it fails to recognise the special geographical problems in places such as Cornwall. If one looks for a hospital or health service to the north, one finds sea. To the south, it is the same. In my constituency, in west Cornwall, one would need to go to Newfoundland to find a hospital to the west and, as we all know, Cornish people are not keen on going east into England.
I fully appreciate and accept that there is no such thing as a perfect and objective formula waiting to be miraculously discovered, but I know that hon. Members will agree that it could be greatly improved. Frankly, we have gone in the wrong direction, in response to an increasingly litigious society. We have seen more paper, more patients charters, more visions, more performance tables, more missions, more business plans. What has all that created?
All we have achieved is a more remote, out-of-touch and unaccountable system. For all its inhumanity, it should have created efficiencies, but we all know that it did not. Incidentally, I welcome the Government's efforts to remove the absurd purchaser-provider split from the health service. It has created a self-perpetuating culture of centralised management. The corollary is a distaste for and private derision of community facilities and values, and the treatment of patients as human beings rather than as statistics.
It is time to challenge the trend towards treating patients as remote tamagochi pets. It is time to fight back, as we are doing in Cornwall. It is time for a funding


formula that recognises the wide diversity of communities, geography and needs across the land. That is all I ask, and I do not think it is too much.
Question put and agreed to. 
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Simon Hughes, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Bob Russell and Mr. John Burnett.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (EQUITY OF FUNDING)

Mr. Andrew George accordingly presented a Bill to set up an independent National Health Service Funding Advisory Body charged with the task of ensuring an equitable formula for the funding of local health authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 84].

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. 
The Bill has two aims: to ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to have available the measures that they need to counter terrorism; and to protect the rights of individuals directly affected by the operation of the counter-terrorism provisions. It achieves those twin aims by extending the life of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which otherwise would expire in August next year, and by making some important amendments to the existing provisions.
It is important to place the Bill in the context of developments in Northern Ireland. Steady progress has been made in the peace process. The loyalist ceasefire of 1994 is holding and despite the recent speculation about resignations from the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein, the renewed Provisional IRA ceasefire is also intact. All but two of the local parties are engaged in talks aimed at achieving a lasting political settlement by May of next year. While we wish all parties to be present and to have their voices heard at the talks, we have a duty to press on in the negotiations with those who are willing to participate.
The most difficult tasks lie ahead. It would be misplaced optimism to underestimate the challenge that faces the two Governments and all the parties engaged in the talks. They will require vision and courage in their quest for peace. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing them continued steady progress and success. 
On the security front, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Mr. Ronnie Flanagan, said recently that the Provisional IRA's ceasefire remains remarkably stable and that that has resulted in a significantly reduced level of terrorist activity. That is certainly the case, but some terrorist groups on both sides remain active and could destabilise the peace process. The Government are clear that there can be no question of leaving the security forces without the resources that they need to counter such activities.
I do not intend to catalogue recent incidents. Hon. Members are only too well aware of what has happened recently. However, I shall mention one incident to illustrate my point. On 30 October, the Continuity IRA left a holdall bomb in a public office of the Department of the Environment in Derry. Only the detonator of the device exploded. It contained a quantity of Semtex and petrol. Had it properly ignited, it would have caused serious damage to the building, and very possibly serious injury or death. The fact that that did not happen should in no way obscure the intent and purpose behind the planting of the bomb. It was carried out as a blatant calculated act of terrorism, with the underlying aim of derailing the talks process.

Mr. David Trimble: The Minister pointed out that the holdall bomb in Londonderry was


claimed by the so-called Continuity Army Council. Yet as he said, the bomb contained Semtex, and there is only one known source from which that Semtex could come—the Provisional IRA.
Will the Minister comment on that aspect, because the presence of Semtex in the bomb suggests that at some level within the IRA assistance, in terms of material, and perhaps more than that, was being given to that other organisation. What does that suggest about the strength of the IRA ceasefire?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is, in one sense, speculating on the basis of what may be a possible fact—that the Provisional IRA is the only known source of Semtex. I mentioned the possibility of fragmentation and what may flow from that. We have no direct evidence that there was a transfer of material from the Provisional IRA to the Continuity Army Council—or the Continuity IRA, as it is otherwise known.
As for the status of the existing ceasefire, I have said that the Chief Constable, who has a responsibility for assessing the security aspects of the situation, is clear that that ceasefire is still being maintained. It is a ceasefire very different from the previous one, and we all hope that that continues to be the case.
I have already pointed out that the device in question, and the other devices planted at Markethill and elsewhere, represented blatant calculated acts of terrorism. The terrorists have not gone away.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is about time that the Secretary of State and the Minister, who has responsibility for security, made some calculated judgments on their own account. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he says with the words of Francis Molloy, who was sitting negotiating in the talks on disarmament yesterday, yet reassured IRA members that
Sinn Fein's political policy 'was a tactic rather than an end in itself".
I do not need to say more to the Minister. He understands the significance of those calculated words of Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to make an independent judgment of the security situation as I understand it, but I am sure that he is all too well aware that when assessing security events on the ground it is important to take proper advice from people such as the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. At the end of the day it is for Ministers to weigh such advice and to make judgments accordingly. However, the judgments have to be based on facts, not on leaps of supposition.

Mr. Maginnis: And my second point?

Mr. Ingram: I am coming to that. From here I cannot see for sure, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to be quoting from a press report of what was said. If he has a transcript—

Mr. Maginnis: indicated assent.

Mr. Trimble: indicated assent.

Mr. Ingram: —that may prove helpful. However, what I said at the beginning still holds. In the view of the

practitioners on the ground, in the view of the RUC, the existing ceasefire is of a substantially different nature from the previous one. In terms of the quality of advice coming to Ministers, that is indeed the case. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would prefer judgments to be made on such advice rather than on reportage in the press, or on interpretations thereof.

Mr. Maginnis: The Minister challenges me on my point. But I can tell him that there are those who have lived with the situation for years. May I explain my credentials? In June 1995 I told the Minister and other hon. Members that Martin McGuinness had said that the ceasefire had effectively ended. Now, with the same authority and the same background, I tell the Minister that there are those, such as Councillor Francis Molloy, who are reassuring the IRA that the political process is but a tactic, and that those people will go back to doing what they did best—they will use the iron fist. The Minister cannot deny that. He does not look like an ostrich, so he should not talk like one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions must be brief, especially if the hon. Gentleman wants the opportunity to put an argument himself in due course.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has never made a brief intervention in his life.

Mr. Ingram: Some of the hon. Gentleman's interventions may be brief, but they are certainly full of insults. He is right that I am not an ostrich, and I do not intend to act like one. That is why we are, as I said, taking the best security advice. Of course I will listen to what the hon. Gentleman says about his experience, but the fact that in the past what was predicted came to pass does not mean that the same will inevitably happen a second time. A judgment must be made on the quality of the ceasefire as it currently exists.
It would be wrong for those who wish to move the peace process forward, constantly to try to be too predictive and gloom-ridden about what may or may not develop—

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Ingram: I shall make some progress now. We have a long time for the debate and there are not many hon. Members in the Chamber. Those who are here will have the opportunity to make their own points in the debate—

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Ingram: I may return to the hon. Gentleman later.
What I now wish to do—it follows on from what we have been saying—is to pay tribute to the security forces. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Ulster Unionist party will support me in that. In extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances, the security forces have striven with great professionalism to maintain order and to protect the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
I include in that tribute the Army, whose support has been necessary in tackling the threat posed by the terrorist groups. The police and the Army have sustained severe losses in the line of duty—along with many civilians in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years or so. It is therefore the duty of the Government and of the House to ensure that they continue to have available the means that they need to deal effectively with terrorism.
Against the backcloth that I have painted, there can be no question but that the case is made for the retention of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in the short term. In the longer term, the Government wish to see an end to the present temporary arrangements, and our intentions are as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the House on 30 October—the same day that the Continuity IRA left a bomb in the motor tax office in Derry. I shall return to my right hon. Friend's announcement on that occasion in a moment.
There will be those in the House who question why the Government are renewing provisions against which its members voted when in opposition. Let me make it clear that as a party we have never questioned the need for effective counter-terrorism legislation. 
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said from the Opposition Benches on Second Reading of the current EPA on 9 January 1996:
We do not oppose counter-terrorism legislation; we oppose the nature of the Bill."—[Official Report,  9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 42.] 
My party in opposition voted against the legislation in the past because of what we saw as particular basic flaws that it contained.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Come on, try harder.

Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the previous debate he will find that flavour running through it. My quotation was not selective. The Secretary of State and the Under—Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who will wind up the debate today, made such points throughout the debate, explaining why they opposed the legislation as it then existed. We are seeking in the Bill to address those flaws and to place the measure within the context of the Government's longer-term approach towards effective, permanent anti-terrorist legislation. 
Let me return to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who told the House:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I therefore intend to present proposals to replace both the current Acts with permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorism legislation. We intend to publish the proposals in the form of a consultation paper early in the new year. The paper will draw on Lord Lloyd's most helpful analysis and recommendations."— [Official Report,  30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1029.] 
The Government's aim is to end the temporary arrangements that we have inherited and to put in place the best permanent legislation that we can devise for countering domestic and international terrorism. The new legislation must be flexible; it must address the changing situation in Northern Ireland and the changing nature of terrorism worldwide. The consultation exercise that we propose to launch in January will be an important first step.
Some will argue that the Government are taking a soft line on terrorism; I would argue that the contrary is the case. The Government's aim is to give the security forces permanent, effective powers to fight terrorism from whichever direction it may come. The Government are resolute—we shall never drop our guard in the fight against terrorism.
We are grateful to Lord Lloyd for his independent and comprehensive review last year of existing legislation. His recommendations were predicated on there being a lasting peace in Northern Ireland—a situation for which all of us in this House earnestly hope. As all of us know, however, that we remain some way from that position. The Government nevertheless consider Lord Lloyd's analysis of the existing legislation, and his recommendations for the shape and content of future legislation, to be very helpful. We shall be building on his ideas in the construction of that new legislation.
Let me now explain the specific provisions of the Bill. The Bill extends the life of the current Act by two years to 24 August 2000. It also maintains the arrangement whereby its temporary provisions, which form its substantive part, are subject to annual renewal. As the House is aware, for the purpose of the annual renewal of the temporary provisions, the Government appoint an independent reviewer, who reports to Parliament. In recent years, that duty has been admirably borne by John Rowe QC.
I remind hon. Members that the current Act contains a power to suspend many of its provisions. That power will be maintained; it is exercisable at any time during the lifetime of the Act if justified by changed circumstances. Therefore, should a political settlement be achieved, it will be open to the Secretary of State, when she judges it right to do so, to act to let lapse such provisions as she sees fit. 
Further to that, other features of the existing Act are retained: the schedule of terrorist offences; the mode of trial for such offences, the Diplock courts; the additional powers of arrest, search and seizure for the police and the Army; the specific offences against public security and public order, including offences relating to involvement with proscribed organisations; the regulatory provisions for the private security industry in Northern Ireland; the regime for terrorist suspects held under section 14 of the PTA in the holding centres, together with the safeguards in the related codes of practice; and the appointment of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures—an important position, which will continue to be filled while the Army are needed in Northern Ireland.
The changes that the Bill makes to the current Act are small in number, but significant and in line with commitments given by the Labour party when in opposition. An important underlying aim of the Act is to ensure that the treatment of persons charged with terrorist crime is as close as it can sensibly be to that which applies in ordinary criminal cases. 
The amendments that we propose move the legislation even closer towards that objective. In essence, this Bill amends the EPA in three critical areas: the scheduling of offences and the facility whereby offences may be certified out; executive detention, or internment, as it is known; and the operative regime in the police holding centres. 
Let me deal with each of them in turn. First, on the question of scheduled offences, the Government accept that, for the time being, the Diplock court system must continue for terrorist crime; there is nothing to show that the system has produced perverse judgments or that it has lowered standards. The Government hope that, eventually, it will be possible to return to a system of jury trial. However, it is our judgment that that is not possible at present. We have therefore considered what steps we might take at this time legitimately to reduce the potential for cases to be heard by Diplock courts.
At present some scheduled offences must automatically be tried by Diplock courts; yet it is conceivable that, in certain cases, some such offences could be committed in circumstances not connected with the emergency. The Bill therefore amends schedule 1 to the current Act to add to the number of scheduled offences that can be certified out of the schedule at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and thus be tried by a jury.
The effect is that, of the scheduled offences, only those which are PTA and EPA offences—and indeed, not all of the latter—will in future be tried automatically by a Diplock court. It will be possible for all other scheduled offences that are committed in, say, a domestic or non-emergency context to be certified out for trial by jury. I shall not list the offences which by virtue of the Bill will become certifiable out; but offences such as the common law offence of riot and some firearms offences are examples.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister include in the list of terrorist crimes the continued punishment beatings which, according to my information—and despite the fact that people are trying to cover them up—are up by about 75 per cent? Will punishment beatings be scheduled out?

Mr. Ingram: For one thing, I would not call them punishment beatings, as that term implies a justification for the action. I constantly refer to them as paramilitary assaults, as that describes more graphically the actions carried out. Where there is evidence that such an act has been carried out by a terrorist or paramilitary group, the perpetrators must be brought to justice. It is helpful if we put those actions in their proper context and do not classify them as punishment beatings—that is loose terminology which detracts from the seriousness of the acts.
In terms of the figures that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has given, the quality of the ceasefire—that includes such things as paramilitary assaults—is different on this occasion. There is no evidence this time that the ancillary or related activities of the paramilitary groups have continued as they did last time. We will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that information is made as widely available as possible if we are able to so identify the nature of the action carried out.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with his comments on punishment beatings. May I return to the question of certifying out? When Peter Archer—now Lord Archer of Sandwell—was shadow Secretary of State, it was the

policy of the Labour party to argue for certifying in, rather than for certifying out. Can my hon. Friend outline the difficulties that made him abandon that policy?

Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know of his long-standing interest in the issue. We examined the idea in considerable detail and it is not for want of trying to find a formula for making progress that we have not proceeded with it. We decided that it was too complex and could cause difficulties when the judicial system had to be involved in judgments about what should be subject to a jury trial. Following advice from judicial colleagues, or from those with responsibility for such matters, we decided in the meantime not to proceed in that way. I will explain the background to that decision in more detail.
The change in scheduled offences will undoubtedly increase the work load of the Attorney—General, but that is the price to be paid for ensuring that, when it is at all possible and correct to do so, the normal criminal procedures are applied. We must take appropriate advice from those who have responsibility for such matters in Government, to ensure effective delivery of the judicial system.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I note the Minister's point about how onerous it would be for the Attorney-General and his office if certifying in rather than certifying out were to be the standard. Does he accept that at present about 85 per cent. of scheduled cases are certified out by the Attorney-General's office and that certifying in the other 15 per cent. would be less onerous than certifying out 85 per cent.? The argument is really in the opposite direction.

Mr. Ingram: The harsh reality is that terrorist crime is a different type of crime, and that must be taken into account in making judgments. If terrorist crime disappears as a feature of Northern Ireland, the issue becomes less relevant. The problem for the Attorney-General's office is not only work load, but the way in which it could be compromised in making judgments about jury trials. That is the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) may be able to cite previous shadow Attorneys-General, but the current one is giving us the advice, and we want to proceed on the basis of that advice.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that I am being thick, but I simply do not understand. If a judgment has to be made to certify out, and everything else goes in, why cannot a judgment be made to certify in? It would be the same judgment about jury trials, one way or the other. If the Attorney-General merely leaves a case in, he is saying that it is a terrorist offence, and if he certifies it in he is saying the same thing. There is no difference in the application of his judgment in that case. Whatever view former shadow Attorneys-General took, the logic of the present Attorney-General's case, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister, simply does not stand up.

Mr. Ingram: We could spend a long time debating the matter, but I think that I have set out the background. My hon. Friend will no doubt return to the matter and make his points forcefully in his speech, but for now I can
add nothing new to what has already been said. We gave serious consideration to his proposition and, on balance, we decided not to proceed with it.
The Government's position on internment is clear. The retention of the provisions, albeit in a lapsed state, was the single most compelling reason why the Labour party voted against the renewal of the legislation in the past. The truth is that the powers are draconian. They have not been used in more than 20 years, although of course the past 20 years has been one of the most active periods for terrorism in Northern Ireland. The fact that the provisions were not used during that period and did not prove a deterrent against terrorism exposes their redundancy. 
The Government's clear view is that internment did not represent an effective counter-terrorism measure in the past; does not represent one now; and is not likely to do so in the future. The reality is that internment involves a decision by Government to deprive individuals of their liberty without trial and without the normal safeguards that the law provides for the protection of the accused. Its use would only ever have been justified as a last resort; it has never been seen as a means of achieving stability within the community. The Government believe that the effect would be quite the reverse: it would increase community tension; cause serious damage to respect for the rule of law; strengthen the terrorist organisations; create political prisoners; and ultimately prolong the violence.
Pending the introduction of permanent legislation, the package of provisions contained in the PTA and the EPA, as amended by the Bill, together with the experience and professionalism of the security forces and practitioners within the criminal justice system, will provide substantial measures for dealing with terrorism in a much more effective way.

Mr. Roger Stott: Unlike hon. Members who have cross-examined him during his speech, I congratulate my hon. Friend—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend—on fulfilling a commitment that was given in opposition and is being brought to fruition in government. Some of us who have been dealing with Northern Ireland matters for many years have consistently stood out against internment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on its discontinuation.

Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to all his work on the matter, and to the work of those who served with him on the Opposition Front Bench. Our fundamental objection to the previous legislation was that it included the internment provisions, and we are now removing them from the statute book.

Mr. Godman: rose —

Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the Minister conceive of no circumstances in which the Government would want to reintroduce internment?

Mr. Ingram: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the issue, and of many related issues, because he served as a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am sure that, when he was doing that job, he would not have joined the "what if?" school

of politics. People keep asking, "What if this or the other were to happen?", but we cannot proceed if we focus constantly on the negatives. We must consider the positive measures in the legislation.
Conservative Members should not be surprised at the measure. It was well trailed in advance of the general election, and independent experts have commented on the need to remove internment; or, to be more accurate, they have said that they see no purpose in its remaining, so the logic would be to remove it. We are doing that very thing and so sending a significant message, based on what I have said about respect for the rule of law and the way in which internment could exacerbate, rather than help, the situation. 
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) still wants to intervene—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is asleep."] Well, that is not my fault.
The third area in which we are seeking to amend the emergency provisions Act is in the introduction of audio recording in police holding centres where terrorists are taken for interview. Again, that should come as no surprise, since it was one of those issues for which the Labour party campaigned in opposition and which is now being delivered in government.

Mr. Godman: I can assure my hon. Friend that, as always, I have been listening to him very carefully. I welcome the proposal on audio recording in clause 5 of the Bill, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am sure, but when will such recordings be introduced—long before 2000, I hope?

Mr. Ingram: Yes. Clearly, the systems must be put in place. Also, silent video recording—a proposition that we inherited—is still not in place. The mechanism had to be assessed and we had to study ways in which it could be implemented. 
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of the proposal. The independent commissioner for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and his deputy Dr. Bill Norris, have for many years argued the case for such recording. We are grateful to Sir Louis and Dr. Norris for their continuing work and for their thorough reports into that matter and to other aspects of the holding centres. I am pleased to be acting to put in place measures that they and others have long advocated.
The introduction of audio recording will provide additional protection for both interviewees and police interviewing officers against claims of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment. It will also assist the judicial process by providing the best possible record of interviews conducted, in the event that a criminal case ensues.
Those are the three main areas of amendment to the legislation. The Bill also makes a minor amendment to the existing provision on silent video recording, which will run separately and alongside the audio recording system because of the inherently separate purpose for which it is intended. The amendment addresses an omission in the current Act.
Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities. Also occasionally, a magistrate may


order a person to be produced at a holding centre for questioning. The amendment will give authority for such interviews to be recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres.
I call on the House to support the Government in their move to renew the existing Act for a further two years and to support the changes that I have described. That will ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to be equipped to deal with the level of terrorist threat applying.
The measures set out in the Bill are sensible, constructive and consistent with the Government's overall aim of putting in place an effective and balanced approach to tackling the evil of terrorism. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am grateful to the Minister of State for setting out the main provisions of the Bill and the principle changes that the Government propose to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
I must say at the outset that, as a responsible and constructive Opposition, we have no hesitation in supporting this vital legislation. Unlike the Labour party when it was in opposition, we shall not shirk from our fundamental responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. We have never had any doubt about the importance or the necessity of the emergency provisions. They are vital for the protection of the public and a crucial weapon in the fight against terrorism.
For 18 years, successive Conservative Secretaries of State came to the House to renew the powers contained in the emergency legislation. Year on year after 1981, Labour Members trooped into the Lobby to oppose us. More recently, they had a sudden change of heart and summoned up the courage to abstain. Many colleagues will recall their more lurid descriptions of the evils of that legislation as "draconian" and "repressive". Lame and pathetic excuses were ritually trotted out by Labour Front-Bench Members to excuse their behaviour and to appease the hard left on their Back Benches, even during the darkest days of the troubles internment. Finally, they came up with the issue of internment. For the sole reason that the power remained on the statute book, albeit in a lapsed form, they refused to support us.
I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me. I cast no aspersions on his abhorrence and that of his ministerial colleagues of terrorism, or on their commitment to defeat it, but the defeat of terrorism requires more than condemnation. As we have always recognised, it requires a willingness and a commitment to act. So it is not without a certain irony that we now see a Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box introducing another emergency provisions Bill.
Perhaps the most important area of bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is the fight against terrorism. It demonstrates the total determination of both major parties in the House that terrorism will never succeed and that parliamentary government throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be vigorously defended. Make no mistake, we do not like emergency provisions—no party does. They contain powers that, in normal circumstances,

any democracy should abhor. We would prefer that they were no longer required, but they are required in Northern Ireland today, so I can assure the Government that, as long as they continue to sustain effective anti-terrorist legislation, even though we might differ on certain details, they shall have our full support.

Mr. McNamara: Where in his range of importance does the hon. Gentleman put the peace process?

Mr. MacKay: High, but the first and most fundamental duty of the House is to protect the people of Northern Ireland from terrorism and to ensure that we have a democracy there. That is the most fundamental part of the bipartisan policy, and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman—as he well knows—that we fully support the political talks that are being engaged in. If he is talking about priorities, the first priority must be the fight against terrorism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his considerable experience of those matters, will concur.

Mr. McNamara: The peace process is the most important thing, because that is what will lead to an end to terrorism.

Mr. MacKay: That is as may be, and that is very trite. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is to be peace at any price, he is very much mistaken, as his Front-Bench team will agree. The first duty of the House is to protect the people of this country from terrorist attack and to ensure that we have democratic institutions in all parts of the United Kingdom. I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and I would have hoped and expected him to agree.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: It is a small point, perhaps, but surely it is important that, while the terrorism legislation that we are discussing is tactical—trying to prevent things from happening—the settlement talks are the strategic element and so come higher in the list of priorities.

Mr. MacKay: With the greatest respect, as I told the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my highest priority and, I should have thought, that of every hon. Member, is to defend the whole of the United Kingdom against terrorist attack. On reflection, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) might like to agree, as his predecessors on the Liberal Democrat Benches have done.

Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman is shifting his ground. He is talking about the defence of democracy as well, and he said so in the first and second responses, but not in the third. The defence of democracy requires a respect for the rule of law. The Labour party challenged the temporary provisions Act precisely because locking up people without a trial is opposed to the rule of law and democracy and did us enormous damage, as well as undermining the fight against terrorism. Will he commit himself, in the fight for the rule of law and democracy, to getting rid of internment provisions?

Mr. MacKay: There is a role for internment and, if the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a minute, he will hear me develop a clear case for that.
I shall come to the details of the Bill shortly, but first let me say that today's debate provides the House with an opportunity to consider the wider security and political context in which the Government are required to introduce the legislation. As the Minister pointed out, the most significant development has been the restoration of the IRA ceasefire on 20 July this year. We also note that the loyalist ceasefire has been maintained since October 1994. The Opposition welcome the IRA ceasefire and the fact that it has since been maintained; we also welcome the fact that Sinn Fein has now signed up to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and has, on that basis, been admitted to the Stormont talks.
We hope—as must the whole House—that that represents a genuine commitment, for we must all stand firm on the principle that there can never be any justification for the use or the threat of violence. Violence for political ends in a democracy can never be allowed to succeed. The IRA will never bomb Britain out of Northern Ireland, nor will it ever bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That message should continue to ring out from this House, loud and clear. Sinn Fein should take this opportunity to turn its back on violence for good and it must stick rigidly in the talks to the Mitchell principles—there can be no fudging on that issue.
In their response to the Ulster Unionist party's submission on Sinn Fein's continued participation in the talks, the Government said that both the British and the Irish Governments would
react firmly to any infringements of the Mitchell principles".
I look forward to the Minister reiterating that commitment when he makes his winding-up speech. There can be no equivocation on the part of Sinn Fein in its attitude towards IRA violence. The commitment to democratic and peaceful methods, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration, means precisely that.
The Opposition wish the Minister and his colleagues well in the political talks. We share his objectives of a comprehensive political settlement and a lasting peace. The people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less. However, stability will be established and new political arrangements will last only if they are built on the right foundations. The most important of those are the principle of consent and the triple lock of parties, people and Parliament. We look to the Government for a reassurance that the principle of the consent will remain paramount and that there is no question of breaking the triple lock. In particular, I ask the Minister to state categorically that, in the absence of agreement next May, the Government will not try to appeal over the heads of the parties and that consent, as it applies to the second element of the triple lock, means the people of Northern Ireland alone.
In addition, we believe that there will be serious engagement in, and a successful conclusion to, the talks only with confidence-building measures on both sides of the community. That includes the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives, without which the shadow of the gunmen will be cast permanently over the political process in Northern Ireland. So far, there have been no assurances from Sinn Fein that the IRA will contemplate decommissioning in parallel with the party talks—far from it. We therefore look to the Government to ensure that no party is allowed to stall on that central issue and that early progress is made in the decommissioning sub-committee and the independent decommissioning body.
Despite the welcome progress that has been made, it is vital that we do not lower our guard—after all, we have been here before. The Conservative Government took a number of justifiable risks and showed real political flexibility. For the period of the ceasefires, there was hope that the nightmare of violence had ended for good; but that hope was blown apart in the murder and rubble of Canary wharf and Manchester. The return to violence had no justification and demonstrated the enduring contempt for democracy that characterises the IRA. The Government should therefore not be deluded about the potential difficulties that might lie ahead in the political negotiations at Stormont. 
The Government should recognise the misgivings of many people in Northern Ireland about whether their elected representatives are participating in the same process as Sinn Fein. There can be few more difficult acts for a politician in a democracy than to sit across the table from people who have so recently acted as apologists for terrorism. In the Government's own words, Sinn Fein and the IRA remain "inextricably linked". In that context, I pay special tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has led the Ulster Unionist party through such a difficult few months.
During those months, and since the announcement of the ceasefire, there have been several developments that give cause for continued concern, some of which the Minister mentioned. So-called punishment beatings have continued-the latest count attributes about 30 to the loyalists and 21 to republican groups. We condemn unreservedly those vile and vicious acts, from whichever side of the community they come. They are clearly incompatible with a commitment to democracy and should cease immediately. I trust that the Minister will remind those parties in the talks that claim to have an influence with the paramilitaries on both sides, of their responsibilities in that respect.
We have also seen in the past few days reports of serious resignations from Sinn Fein and the IRA—including a purported member of the IRA Army Council and an entire battalion in south Armagh—opening up the prospect of more serious fissures in the republican movement in future. The Continuity Army Council and Republican Sinn Fein—itself the product of previous splits—remain implacably opposed to the ceasefire and have demonstrated their ability to threaten life and property. Only by good fortune has that threat been averted.
Meanwhile, representatives of the IRA told a republican newspaper that they would have problems with the Mitchell principles, so the Government must remain vigilant. They should not relax any security measures that cannot swiftly be reversed, nor should they be tempted to take decisions for political reasons. We want no more fiascos like the one over the proposed transfer of Jason Campbell. I want the Minister to reassure the House on that point and to reiterate that any measures to ease security on the ground should be taken only following the closest consultation with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable.
In that context, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay a special tribute to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces. It is they who have stood on the front line against terrorism for 27 years, carrying out their duties with the greatest skill, dedication and professionalism. We have always expected, rightly,


the highest standards of them, and in all their activities they have been subject to the discipline of the rule of law. That is how it should be in a democracy. All of us owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. In turn, they deserve the support of all the people of Northern Ireland and all parties in the House.
We currently have peace in Northern Ireland, but, as the Minister will acknowledge, it remains a fragile and imperfect peace. That is the justification for our support for the Bill, to which I shall now turn my attention. In doing so, I express our gratitude for the work of Lord Lloyd in reviewing all the anti-terrorist legislation. As the Minister explained, the Bill extends the 1996 Act for two more years. It retains most of the powers contained in the Act passed by the last Conservative Government; but the Government also seek to make three key amendments.
The first amendment is made by clause 2, which amends schedule 1 of the 1996 Act, which deals with scheduled offences, so as to increase the number of such offences that can be certified out, at the Attorney—General's discretion, to be tried by a jury.
Secondly, as the Secretary of State foreshadowed at a Labour party conference fringe meeting, clause 3 repeals section 36 and schedule 3 of the 1996 Act, which provide for executive detention, or internment, of terrorist suspects. Clause 5 provides for the audio recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects, following the previous Government's introduction of silent video recording.
I shall deal with the second and most controversial of those points in some detail later. On audio recording, our approach in government was always largely guided by the advice of the Chief Constable. We recognise that the present Chief Constable has now concluded that he sees no obstacle to its introduction, and we accept his and the Government's position.
On certifying out, the Bill lists a raft of serious offences that will henceforth be eligible for trial by jury rather than through the Diplock procedure. I listened carefully to the Minister's justification for extending certifying out and to his exchanges with Labour Members, and I acknowledge what he said about such cases being a matter for the discretion of the Attorney-General, but I have several questions. Why do the Government consider it necessary to amend the 1996 Act in such a way now, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's welcome announcement of a review of all anti-terrorist legislation? How many charges have been brought under any of those offences in recent years other than those specifically related to terrorism?
It is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the Government are making unnecessary concessions to those who have always opposed the Diplock system, no matter how necessary it is and despite the fact that it discharges the highest standard of justice. We believe that the Government are being precipitate and engaging in the politics of tokenism—a very dangerous approach to Northern Ireland affairs. 
The same is true of clause 3, which will finally remove the power of executive detention or internment without trial from the statute book. Let me make our position clear. No party can approach this subject lightly. Throughout our period of office, we were urged, not least

in the aftermath of terrible atrocities, to consider introducing internment. We were also advised by several sources, regularly including the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), to repeal those powers.
At all times, our approach was consistent. Governments should consider invoking the power only if there were a serious deterioration in the security situation. It would be self-defeating to spell out the precise circumstances in which that would happen, but the facts that the power has not been used since 1975 and that it has technically lapsed, are not compelling reasons to warrant its removal altogether from the statute book.
It is worth pointing out that the equivalent power in the Republic of Ireland has not been used, to my knowledge, since the 1950s, but the power contained in the Offences Against the State Acts of 1939 and 1940 remains in force. It ill behoves this House to remove internment from the statute book when our friends south of the border are not planning to do the same.
At present, the Secretary of State can sign the order for internment, which then has to be approved by resolutions of both Houses of this Parliament within 40 days. Clause 3 will make such action impossible without the introduction of primary legislation, robbing the Government of the key element of surprise.
The history of Irish republicanism is littered with historic and bitter divisions. Does the Minister imagine that, in the event of an overall settlement, there will not be people in Northern Ireland, on both sides, who, following many precedents, cry betrayal and return to violence? Recent days have shown the potential for that to happen if a comprehensive settlement falls short of what is expected by some in the republican movement. 
Does he not believe that, in such a scenario, the power to intern may prove necessary, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, can he envisage no circumstances in which it would be necessary and right to use that power, particularly if he obtains a political settlement? It is naive beyond belief at this crucial time to take internment off the statute book when the Minister could easily keep it there without using it for the time being, as we did.

Mr. Ingram: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is going down a dangerous road. He says that, in the event of a lasting settlement, schisms in the republican movement are inevitable, and that it should be inevitable that internment should be applied in such circumstances. He obviously did not hear what I said. Internment creates divisions. It brings friends to the terrorist movement. I therefore caution the hon. Gentleman about the line he is adopting. I do not think that it will help the peace process or the current talks process.

Mr. MacKay: With respect, the Minister has not been listening carefully. I said not that I believe that a political settlement will automatically lead to splits among loyalist or republican paramilitaries but that history suggests that it is possible. It would then be up to the Government to consider internment. I am not telling him that he should automatically intern people in such circumstances but cautioning him that it would be wise to have the option of internment available. It is he who is making the mistake by removing it from the statute book. 
To summarise, I believe that to throw away such a weapon of last resort is foolish and wrong. It is yet another example of a Government concession to republicanism that brings no tangible benefit. I hate saying this, but I regret that it is true: it is merely token politics.

Mr. Mallon: I listened with interest to the discussion of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister about what may happen after an agreed political settlement. Has it dawned on the hon. Gentleman that, under the terms of a new political dispensation, the process of justice might be dispensed not from this House but from within a new political settlement? Does that not reinforce the wisdom of the Government's decision to remove this power, which will never again be used in Ireland, from the statute book, here or elsewhere?

Mr. MacKay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to second-guess what will happen at the political talks, what conclusions will be reached and whether they will be endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. I am saying that now, in November 1997, perhaps six months before the conclusion of those talks, there is no need to take internment off the statute book. We know that the Minister is not going to intern people in the foreseeable future; we did not use the power. We are saying that, if the political talks in which Ministers are engaged prove successful, and I pray that they will, there could be circumstances where terrorist splinter groups of both communities behave in such a way that the Government in the south and our Government might possibly think that internment was a suitable measure to introduce. I ask him to keep that option open. That is not an extreme or unreasonable request.

Mr. Soley: I hope that I may persuade the hon. Gentleman of something, because I get the feeling that he is persuadable. Is he so pessimistic and full of doom and gloom that he must assume that Northern Ireland will never be a normal society again? We believe that we should move forward by a series of steps and, above all, that we should restore the rule of law. Internment involves people being locked up without trial. It is inimical to the rule of law, and therefore to democracy. That is why it is important. I ask the Conservative party to try to come on board on this. It is a small but important step to say to the people of Northern Ireland, Unionist and republican, that they are not killing each other as they used to, so let us keep moving in that direction to make it a normal society once more.

Mr. MacKay: I respond to the hon. Member for Hammersmith by saying that I am not being—

Mr. Soley: I am not the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

Mr. MacKay: I am afraid I am not up to speed with the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in Northern Ireland matters throughout the time that I have been in the House and he used to represent Hammersmith.
I believe that I am being not pessimistic but realistic. I am not saying that internment is a good idea; I am simply saying that it is not inconceivable that, in certain circumstances, the Government and—equally important—

the Government in the south, who are not removing internment from their statute book, might need to use it. Of course I hope that they will not. Of course I hope that the men of violence will never resort to violence again. Of course I am pleased that, at the moment, there is a ceasefire and there are political talks, but the House must be realistic, not naive.
In Committee and on Report, we shall table amendments that we hope will alter the Bill for the good. We shall do all in our power to persuade the Minister that we are not asking him to make a major reversal, but saying that those things should be delayed until there is a permanent peace.
Surely the right time to pass this measure would be when a real measure of political settlement had been agreed, and when new political arrangements in Northern Ireland had a degree of stability. At that time, we could think about scrapping internment permanently. Now is not the time to do that—especially not, as appears to be the case, for political rather than security reasons.
We have misgivings about the Government's wisdom in this matter and we shall ask them to reconsider. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government are right to re-enact the legislation, and we shall not use our objections to certain elements as an excuse to oppose the entire Bill. The legislation remains essential, and we shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government tonight.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Clause 3 reads:
Section 36 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (detention orders) shall cease to have effect.
That clause alone justifies support for the Bill. 
I listened to what the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said. I had not intended to quote my past words—I find it repulsive when politicians do that, but I shall be repulsive on this occasion—but I find that my past arguments match his arguments today.
The first reason why we are dividing the House tonight is that we are against internment in principle. It is wrong, and it cannot hope to succeed. It will not succeed. If we uphold the rule of law, we cannot suspend it when the situation becomes a little bit ugly. We have to go through with it. We are against internment in principle whether on this side of the Irish Sea or in Northern Ireland, or if it exists in Southern Ireland."—[Official Report, 23 September 1971; Vol. 823, c. 274.]
It was, and is, a matter of principle.
It is a matter of record that the worst disturbances—the killings, the shootings, the explosions—from both sides of the community took place while internment was in force. Only when the present Lord Rees started the process of ending internment in Northern Ireland did the incidents start to decrease.
The reason was that internment, like two other issues, became a recruiting cry, a rallying cry, for Provisional Sinn Fein.
Armoured cars and tanks and guns
Came to take away our sons
was sung in clubs throughout Northern Ireland. The issue united a peaceful community against the Government because, no matter how many people from the other side might later have been interned, internment was regarded as patently unfair. The arrest of people in such circumstances was seen as fundamentally unjust. 
Labour Members complained that the British Army was carrying out that task and we could not question it because it was being done under the auspices of the Northern Ireland Government. It took the case of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), which went to the House of Lords, to upset that situation and to get legislation through the House. 
Interestingly, handwritten legislation passed through this House and the other place in 24 hours. The then leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, tabled the only amendment—which was not passed—and 15 of us supported him in the attempt. I am happy to say that there remain in the House nine hon. Members who voted against internment on 23 September 1971. 
Internment became a rallying cry, as did two other things: Bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes. Sadly, all three happened when the Conservatives were in government. We are now rectifying the situation and ridding the statute book of one of the principal causes of recruitment to Provisional IRA. I hope that, later this year or early next year, we shall have a positive statement about Bloody Sunday, because that will do a great deal to heal community illnesses.
Unfortunately, we cannot resurrect people who have died. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State and the Minister are to be congratulated on this positive step. If for no other reason than the abolition of internment, the House should pass the Bill by acclamation.
I support the introduction of audio recording into interrogation centres. Combined with video recording, it will provide a powerful boost. It will protect the security forces without affecting their ability to inquire and find and interrogate suspects. In every terrorist case in this country, audio recordings have been taken at Paddington Green police station.
Most policemen I know wonder why they ever opposed audio recording, because it has proved a great tool when they interrogate suspects. Now people cannot say, "I never signed that document" or "I never made that sentence"—the evidence is there. It is a great safeguard for the police. It is a great safeguard for people who are detained.
I wonder what the outcry would have been if we had heard the statements that Roisin McAliskey alleges were made to her when she was first arrested and taken to Castlereagh. I wonder whether she or the police would have been proved correct. If she is correct, the police conduct was outrageous; if the police are correct, what she said about them was outrageous. In any event, the Bill will bring an end to public suspicion about what goes on in Castlereagh and elsewhere. We should welcome what has been decided. Not only Louis Blom-Cooper has commented about the need for the measure; Lord Colville and others did so in their reports.
I am sorry that I was perhaps a little vindictive towards my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the question of contracting out and contracting in. I am sorry that he has been sent to the House to do the Attorney-General's job for him. As we now know, it was the Attorney-General's decision that we should not have certifying in, but should maintain the present system.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General cannot have it in this way. An important matter of principle is involved. It is a question of getting as many

cases as possible in front of juries in Northern Ireland. It is about seeking to achieve normality. His claim that it is because of the work load in his Department, when Northern Ireland by any account—even taking into consideration alleged terrorist offences—has the lowest rate of criminality anywhere in these isles, does not stand up as an argument. Even if it did, in terms of the enormous sums going into Northern Ireland, the cost of extra staff in the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with those cases would be insignificant compared with the boon of going back to proper jury trials.
I am glad that my hon. Friend did not advance the argument, as has been done from other Benches, that all the offences are really terrorist offences, so to certify some in as terrorist offences would be to point a finger at those particular offences. The finger is pointed by the fact that they are not certified out, so that decision is already made. The decision has important ramifications for the powers that are to be kept. It affects the admissibility of evidence, the loosening of the rules of evidence, changes in cases, and the burden of proof. Those are important matters. It would be far better to get back to normality.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to convey to our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the anger that is felt by his colleagues on the Back Benches who believe that he has made a serious error—or has he? I ask because I wonder what will happen under Lord Lloyd's proposals, and the decisions and the White Paper that will be issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
To what extent will Lord Lloyd's proposals be put into legislation? Although they introduce changes, they are not as liberal as they appear. One has only to read his footnotes on internment. Will the Diplock regime, for example, become the mode of trial in the United Kingdom if there is to be a universal system—if terrorist or terrorist-related offences or drug offences are included within an all-embracing piece of anti-terrorist legislation? It is not an easy matter.
Because we have not had in the United Kingdom the problems of jury nobbling or witness nobbling in terrorist cases, it is wrong to think in terms of an all-embracing Act. It would be far better for the legislation to apply only to Northern Ireland, where there is a special and different problem. Terrorism in the United Kingdom that is not Irish-related will be subject to the ordinary criminal law, as is Irish terrorism at present.
We have had no difficulty in the United Kingdom dealing with Irish terrorist offences under our rules of law, our rules of evidence and our system—except, perhaps, when the prosecution has been so perverse in the evidence that it has presented that it has produced the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family. Generally speaking, however, there has been no undue difficulty with jury trial.
If we want to return to a system of jury trials in Northern Ireland and get people ready to accept such a return to normality, we must surely have a system of certifying in and not certifying out.
I do not intend to delay the House much longer. I have put down markers about what I fear may be the result of implementing some of Lord Lloyd's proposals. I hope that as liberal an attitude as possible will be adopted in what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes in his White Paper.
I give two and a half hearty cheers for the Bill, but not the three cheers that I would like to give because of the failure over certifying in. Nevertheless, the decision on internment is historic and important, and should be welcomed by anybody who wants a return to normality and the rule of law in these islands.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I have some sympathy for the Minister. Introducing the Bill, he has been required to give a backdrop to the situation in Northern Ireland, and he has been constrained by the fact that the talks process is taking place. He certainly does not want to do anything that would jeopardise those talks, and neither do I. I, as much as he, want success in the talks process, but I cannot afford—and the Minister will be judged foolish by history if he tries to achieve—a virtual whitewash of the continuing problems that we face in relation to terrorism.
Terrorism is not peculiar to the republican movement. Serious terrorism has emanated from both traditions in Northern Ireland. Nobody tries to hide that fact. The better organized—not the more deadly, but the more sustainable—terrorism emanates from the republican movement and from the IRA, because it approaches its terrorism strategically. It is not reactive; it is not tactical; it is strategic and is based on the Armalite and ballot box philosophy which enables the IRA terrorist to use as much force as he considers necessary to make an impression on society in Northern Ireland and on the Government here in Westminster. 
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the factors that motivate terrorism. I know that he would be deeply offended if I suggested, and I will not for a moment suggest, that he is excusing terrorism on the basis of internment or Bloody Sunday or the hunger strike. When the hon. Gentleman talks about that, he should also mention Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Warrington, Regent's Park, Droppin' Well Inn and Warrenpoint. In those instances, there might have been an upsurge by the entire Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland, but that did not happen.
Despite the tragedy and suffering caused by those events, the greater number of people in the Unionist community said that violence was not the way forward. They want to support democracy and see it at work, but they expect their Government to provide adequate law and order enforcement measures. 
I would like to be able to tell the Minister that he is not doing as well as the previous Government, but I think that he is probably doing just as badly. The previous Government did not meet their obligations in terms of the serious violence in Northern Ireland. The RUC and the Army are always expected to behave like a fire brigade: they rush out when something happens, but they do not have a strategy for dealing with terrorism, because successive Governments for the past 37 years have failed to provide that strategy and the political backcloth against which it can operate.
I return now to the IRA and its Armalite and ballot box philosophy. My party and I must judge the IRA on what it is doing today. Has it changed its strategy? Is it trying to adjust to the circumstances and opportunities that are presented through the talks process? The answer is clearly no. The IRA leaders, who are now sitting at the table

of democracy—the unreconstructed terrorists are sitting among those who, throughout their political lives, have been dedicated to democratic methods—have not told the rank and file, "You cannot achieve your objectives through violence." 
The past 27 years have proved that decent people in both traditions in Northern Ireland are dedicated to a peaceful way forward, yet Gerry Adams stood in front of the city hall in Belfast and said, "The IRA hasn't gone away, you know." In Coalisland, Martin McGuinness said, "We intend to smash British rule in Northern Ireland." Only last weekend, a leading spokesman for IRA-Sinn Fein addressed a meeting of 150 IRA men in county Armagh. He referred to what would happen if the talks ended, and said:
Whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best".
Will the Minister tell the House that that will not involve violence—shooting, bombing and holding the civilian population to ransom for as long as the IRA can sustain it in the face of inadequate reaction by Government, who do not have a comparable strategy? This man has called for IRA, Sinn Fein and republican prisoners to unite as a "clenched fist" to force an end to British rule in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister pretend that that is not a threat to shoot and bomb the civilian population in Northern Ireland? Mr. Molloy, who thought that he was talking to his own people and did not realise that two journalists were in the room, then said:
Sinn Fein's political policy was a tactic rather than an end in itself'.
It is the Armalite and the ballot box—I cannot emphasise that enough.
If the IRA does not condition its rank and file to move away from reliance on the Armalite and towards a total commitment to democracy, it is saying that the ballot box and the ballot paper are valid only so long as the Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and members of the Government are prepared to pay a ransom to keep the IRA at the table of democracy. 
I shall not delay the House by rehearsing the ransom that has been paid—the danegeld that is paid weekly—to keep Messrs Adams and McGuinness at the table of democracy. The Minister knows as well as I do the reality of the situation. I see that the Under—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who has responsibility for education, is looking rather sceptical. I suggest that there will soon be an announcement regarding the creation of a university campus in west Belfast in order to provide jobs. Have hon. Members ever heard of creating a university in order to provide jobs?

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: No, I shall give way later.
I thought that university campuses were created to provide educational opportunities.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Maginnis: I shall give way when I have finished this point. Will the Minister tell us whether that university will be created? We know that a large part of the capital funding for the project will come from a source outside


the Government's immediate budget, but revenue used to sustain that campus will have an effect on primary schools, which are increasingly underfunded, and on secondary schools.

Mr. McNamara: Order!

Mr. Maginnis: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be intimidated. This matter is relevant to how we deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister try to tell me that secondary education is sustained at an adequate level in Northern Ireland and that the record is good? Has he not decided on swingeing cuts for grammar schools? Does he claim that he and previous Governments have not underfunded colleges of further education? Will he tell me that our university students will not have to pay tuition fees—initially £1,000 a year, but increasingly more than that? 
For political reasons, the Minister is going to put an extra campus in Northern Ireland. We have one at Queen's. We have one at Jordanstown. We have one at Coleraine. We have one at Magee. We have a teacher training college at Stranmillis; and one at St. Mary's; and there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland. What nonsense are we getting into to pay the danegeld to the terrorists in west Belfast? I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) if he wishes.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman posed a rhetorical question: did we ever hear of a university being set up to create jobs? Yes, it is called the university of Ulster, which was set up by a Unionist Government in the north of Ireland when, by any standard of justice, it should not have gone there. I thought it only right to remind the hon. Gentleman of his party's role in doing exactly that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We should draw a line under that part of the discussion and come back within the terms of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will not respond further to that point.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not respond to it. I think that I have made my point.
I implore the Minister to make his own judgment based on three things. He can look at the signs. He can decide whether he sees any evidence, in terms of the future for terrorism in Northern Ireland, that terrorism has been abandoned. I want him to look at history and ask himself whether, in terms of predicting what is happening and is likely to happen in respect of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we on this Bench have not done our best to give substantive guidance to the best of our ability. I think that we have been justified. I put it no stronger than that. The third piece of advice that I would give him is that he has to start thinking like a terrorist. He has to get into the psyche of the terrorist, because if he believes all that he is told he will eat all he sees, as the saying goes.
I do not know why the Chief Constable continues to tell us that the ceasefire is holding, when every signal that we are getting throughout the whole of Northern Ireland suggests that it is holding only because there are one, two,

three, four—I do not know how many—further concessions that can be taken, which can be banked, before the terrorists return to the Armalite, as they have promised.
I shall deal now with loyalist terrorism. Their ceasefire is clearly becoming less stable, as much because of drugs and racketeering as of politics. Some horrible things are happening. The beatings and the intimidation are quite intolerable. I believe that it is happening because there is nothing to indicate to the people who organise such crime that the Government have real resolve. I say again that this Government are no different from previous Governments in that respect.
Having given the background to what we require, I shall look at one or two of the measures that we welcome in the Bill; one or two of the things that are missing; and one or two of the areas where I believe there has been an error.
I am delighted that the Minister has removed internal exile. It was an absolute insult to have internal exile within the United Kingdom. It is divisive and unnecessary.
As for the things that I believe are unwise, when video recording was introduced, we were told that it would protect those with responsibility for questioning terrorist suspects. Well, perhaps it protected the suspect and the person doing the questioning, but it was always dangerous for the police, because there are occasions, as history shows, when terrorists, faced with the reality of years—potentially—in prison, are willing to talk to those who interrogate them and become, to use the simple term, informers; to provide information and intelligence that is useful in the overall battle against terrorism.
Video recording makes that difficult, but it does not make it as difficult as audio recording. An audio recording can be sent for, I must assume, by the lawyer defending the accused person. That means that nothing can take place in the interrogation centre that will be of assistance to the police in the prevention of further terrorism. They cannot gain the confidence of perhaps relatively low-level terrorists, because, as soon as they are destined for court, they are told by their godfathers, "You must instruct your solicitor to get the audio recording." Knowing that, they will simply not be able to provide information that is of help.
Who is being helped by the audio recording—the terrorist or the ordinary member of society who depends on the police to do a very difficult job of bringing the villains to justice? If we are to have audio recording—the Minister tells us that we are—why does he stop at that? Why has he not considered the possibility of admitting telephone wiretaps as evidence? We know that if, as in the case of Adair, a policeman is wired for sound and has a tape recorder in his pocket, he can speak to a suspect and use the conversation as evidence in court. We know that he can bug a room and record what has been said in it and use the evidence in court, so why do we not give the police the opportunity to bring evidence that could be obtained through telephone wiretaps into court in the same way? It makes sense to me. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.
Why has the Minister still failed to consider the issue of identity cards? He and I have identity cards—our driving licences. Most people who work for large companies have identity cards as part of the security of the company.
The Home Secretary has said that he will introduce a card to identify those who are old enough to buy cigarettes and alcohol. I am not sure of the details of his proposal but, given that such a card is apparently to be introduced, why is the Minister still failing to introduce an identity card that would help the security services to deal with terrorism? 
Let me remind the Minister, in the words of Gerry Adams, that the IRA has not gone away. Let me add—in the context of the emergency provisions legislation and the way in which it works—the words of Mr. Rowe, who said in his report earlier this year:
Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year.
That is why we will support the Minister tonight, despite what we consider to be flaws in the legislation. 
There is continuing terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more. I agree with Mr. Rowe: as far as I can see, the EPA has been used fairly and carefully: I have observed no examples of abuse, nor have I been told of any. I believe that, if Mr. Rowe is right, we should endeavour to make the Act more, not less, effective. The terrorist will not respond to the payment of danegeld.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: The gloomy forebodings expressed by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) sit ill on his shoulders. He is normally a good-humoured, affable man, and I sincerely hope that he is wrong on this occasion.

Mr. Maginnis: So do I.

Mr. Godman: As the hon. Gentleman implies—from a sedentary position—we all want the peace talks to be brought to a successful and satisfactory conclusion: satisfactory, that is, from the point of view of all the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland.
I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland has an assembly of its own, based on proportional representation, and with a power-sharing constitution. I am only sorry that some of the secessionists in Northern Ireland who seek to separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain are utterly unpeaceable—unlike those in Scotland who seek a similar separation, but through entirely peaceful and democratic measures. 
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I—who have long had reservations about the powers in the Act—will support the Bill, because of clause 3. Incidentally, I should point out to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that the very welcome proposal to abolish internal exile is not in this Bill, but in the prevention of terrorism legislation. Nevertheless, that proposal must be welcome to all who live, as we do, in a mature parliamentary democracy. Internal exile has no place in a society such as ours.
I welcome the proposal relating to the audio recording of interviews with those in detention centres. As I told him in an intervention, however, I hope that the procedure will be introduced long before 2000, because it will protect not only the rights of the person being cross-examined but the criminal legal procedure system itself.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who will wind up the debate—a question about access to legal advice? In the brief that it sent to the usual suspects, the Committee on the Administration of Justice claims that the number of deferrals of access to legal advice has increased recently. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to that claim. According to the committee, its members
have viewed with considerable concern the government's inaction in this regard especially in light of recent figures, which indicate an increase in deferrals of access to legal advice. The whole of 1996 saw some 13 deferrals. However, the statistics for the first half of 1997 show an increase, with 19 individuals being refused immediate access to a lawyer.
If that allegation is true, there is a serious issue to be sorted out by my hon. Friend and his officials. 
I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North about scheduled offences, and about Bloody Sunday. I have made my views known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: I believe that the matter should be reinvestigated, but not under the aegis of a member of the English legal establishment. 
Finally, let me impress on Ministers that the procedures contained in the Bill must be administered very carefully. Serious concerns have been expressed recently about heavy-handed policing in south Armagh and west Belfast, to which I am sure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will refer if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Bill's proposals must be implemented in a way that does not infringe the human and civil rights of ordinary, decent citizens as they go about their business. We must make Northern Ireland as tolerable a community as possible, and that means that these measures must be implemented carefully.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Like the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am almost tempted to give two and a half cheers for the Bill. I say "tempted", but I shall not succumb to the temptation, for reasons that I hope to be able to clarify.
As one who has been involved in debate about legislation such as this for many years, inside and outside the House—on the Floor of the House, in Committee and elsewhere—I do not want to be churlish. I hold strongly to the view that, once the highest standards of justice are deviated from in a way that makes the process of justice one of trying to solve political problems, the real sufferer will be that process of justice. 
Let me emphasise that starting point again. Had I the opportunity—despite the changes that have been made—to vote against the legislation tonight, I would do so: I make no bones about that. I would do so on the ground that, especially now, there is an absolute requirement for us to move in the direction not of restating the need for emergency legislation—not of reinventing a wheel that has not been able to circumvent the problem with which it was designed to deal—but of starting to create, imaginatively and courageously, an arrangement that would be adequate in the context of the new system for which we are aiming. 
I note with interest the use of the term "peace process": a term of which I am not terribly fond. We have a thing called "peace", which is a valuable commodity where I come from, and a thing called "the political process",


without which peace will be unstable. I make that point as the representative of the constituency of Newry and Armagh. 
Peace is valuable: it does not belong to a Government; it does not belong to an Opposition; it does not belong to a political party; and it does not belong to a paramilitary grouping. Peace belongs to people: it is a basic, God-given human right. It is not to be doled out like lollipops by those who believe in violence, and it is not to be used by anybody. 
I believe that every person in the north of Ireland must benefit from peace: not just where it is selected that they should, and not just in the places where there have been fewer problems on the ground. The people who should experience peace and should benefit most are those, like me, who live in my constituency and have suffered most from the implementation of emergency legislation that has deviated from the highest standards.
This thing called the peace process will not all of a sudden arrive on everyone's doorstep. It will have to be worked at carefully, for there is something more that the House, the Government and the Opposition parties have agreed. It will have to be validated not by Governments but by people in referendums in the north and the south. The referendum in the north has been agreed. Who will validate the peace? Whose validation is most important? Is it the people who have not been much affected by the problem these past 27 years, or the people who have got it in the neck from paramilitary groupings, from security forces and from emergency legislation? Their validation will, in my opinion, be much more valuable than that of those whom the troubles have not terribly affected. Let us not forget that. 
Unless we make changes that are apparent, dangerous situations will develop. It has been proven that legislation such as this does not stop terrorism: not now, not in the past or in the distant past. One of the measures that I welcome immensely is the removal from the statute book of internment without trial. Many of us are products of a society or an environment that has experienced internment. Let us not forget that we had internment in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s: it was not thought up only in the 1970s. Internment failed in each of those decades: it failed to give peace, it failed to solve security problems and above all it failed to have the political effect that it was intended to have.

Mr. Maginnis: Was internment used more viciously and strenuously in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland? Is it not a reality that, when a terrorist organisation goes to war with society, society requires internment to protect itself?

Mr. Mallon: I make no defence of internment in the Republic of Ireland, now or in the past. It did not deal with IRA violence in any of those past decades, because if it had done so, we would not be debating this legislation now. 
There is something much more important at stake: the absolute integrity of the process of law and justice. As individuals and as a community, ultimately our only protection is the system of justice under which we live; otherwise, we would be part of a Kafkaesque society. Many people in the north of Ireland know how Kafkaesque it has been.
The Minister said that there was no evidence that Diplock courts had produced perverse judgments or had lowered standards. We should remember that Lord Diplock said that any court that did not comply with the minimum requirements of the European convention on human rights was not worthy of the name of court of law, should not form part of the ordinary criminal justice system, and should not be staffed by ordinary judges who sit in other criminal courts. That is not my view, but the opinion of Lord Justice Diplock, after whom those courts are named.
Have they complied with European standards? There have been derogations, and they must be rectified. It has been rightly said that those courts come under different legislation, but the implementation of the part of the prevention of terrorism Act that deals with arrests applies to and interlocks with the emergency provisions Act.
I welcome the fact that internment has gone. I am quite sure that it will never be used again, because its failure as a method has been proven by successive Governments in this country and in the Republic of Ireland. The jury of public opinion and experience has accepted that verdict.
I welcome the prospect of a review of the panoply of—dare I say it, because I am beginning to wonder what term I should use—legislation that is not normal as it applies here and in the north of Ireland. I welcome the fact that internal exile in the form of exclusion orders has been suspended, and that none is in operation at this moment. I hope that those measures disappear. While that is being done, what people who come from the north and the south of Ireland are required to do at some ports must be examined, because it is not compatible with standards of justice. That is on the record in the House and outside. If we are to deal with this problem, we should consider that aspect. I ask the Minister to ensure that that matter is included in the review.
I very much welcome clause 5, which provides for the audio recording of the interrogation of people detained under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is a measure for which some of us have been pressing for many years. It has been dealt with in Committee and elsewhere in a way that has proved that the argument for it is irrefutable. Of course, there is one difficulty, which is when it will be implemented. 
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 has been in existence for 15 months, but the codes of conduct for video recording, as provided for in that Act, are still not in operation. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked the valid question when audio recording would become a reality. Is that the urgency that should underpin emergency legislation? If there is an emergency, there should be urgency, and that urgency should work both ways. I urge the Minister to deal with that matter quickly and explain why the 1996 EPA codes of conduct have not yet been implemented.
I refer in passing to the question of certifying in and certifying out. Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer, so I will not involve myself with the legalities. I think that I have also proved that I am not a mathematician but, in view of the figures that we have, it seems that certifying out is much more cumbersome than certifying in. If we start with that clean slate, it may not have any material effect on the cases that will be certified in as opposed to certified out, but it will be an indication, in the Bill, that there is in effect an intention to move towards jury courts.
The significance of certifying in will be that it is a declaration of intent to move not towards something radical, enormous or new but simply to the principle that people in court will be tried by a jury. Of course, in the context of Northern Ireland, that is new in many ways.
Cases in my constituency have been referred to the Attorney-General's office and to the Lord Chancellor's office. Applications have been made to have cases tried outside of the Newry courthouse, for them to be held elsewhere and a jury from another place to be sworn in to try them. There is the confidence in the court system and the jury nobbling, not by paramilitary groupings but by the legal process itself. It is a matter of record, but when it comes to jury nobbling, there are those in the north of Ireland justice system who can do as well as or better than those one would expect to be involved in jury nobbling. Abnormalities have developed in the operation of an abnormal system, and we have to take account of them.
I must express my disappointment that the question of emergency legislation is not dealt with in the Bill. Perhaps it could not be dealt with, but the signals being sent out at the moment should carry hope that we are moving to something new. I do not believe that there are any circumstances in the modern world in which there will be no legislation to deal with terrorism, be it national, regional or international, but that is a different matter. Here, we have a legal system that is abnormal; we have a system of implementation of that legal system that is wholly abnormal; and we have legislation that is abnormal. In that abnormality, those of us in the political process are charged with creating a normal political situation. That is the crux of the matter—that is the difficulty we face.
I must refer to the situation in west Belfast and south Armagh and the fact that they are saturated with security. This is not Sinn Fein propaganda, although Sinn Fein uses it as such; nor is it a stick with which to beat the legislation—it is simply my experience. I look out of my window when I am having breakfast and I see lookout posts on the hills. They are doing nothing, and never have done anything. They are there for the optics, yet the land was taken from the people. It was not asked for or bought, but taken.
What about the holding centres? I suggest that the Minister considers what was said about them by the independent commissioner for the holding centres, who pointed out that they were not suitable for the holding of people for the length of time possible under emergency legislation. Do those centres have to remain? Does Castlereagh have to remain as a monument to the failure of emergency legislation through the years? Does the Gough barracks have to remain in that shape or form, or is there the courage to take another little step into the future as another declaration of intent to ensure a new beginning in every sense of the word?
The Government should be commended on the changes. In many ways, those changes were courageous. I believe that the Government, coming from where they did in relation to this legislation, have shown courage. I ask them to take their courage in their hands, move a little further to that declaration of intent and give us all a chance to make a new beginning. I know of the difficulties and I know the advice that the Government will receive—I heard some of it tonight. I know the risk involved.
The Minister said that this was a very different ceasefire. He must have intelligence to which I do not have access and assessments that I have not seen. What I know about ceasefires is that they are all acts of faith in the future. They require confidence that simply cannot be quantified in terms of support, but what chance have we if we do not believe that peace can be a reality? What chance have we of solving any problems if we do not have the conviction that peace is something that we all can bring to the place in which we live? If we do not have that, we are simply wallowing in the failures of the past. That is why I regard this type of legislation, with its deficiencies, as an indication that there is a temptation to hold on to the past and not take the quantum leap into the future, a leap that will have to be made by all of us sooner or later.

Ms Margaret Moran: Some hon. Members have been slightly reserved in expressing their appreciation of the Bill—but I say three cheers, primarily because we can celebrate the end of internment. I understand the reservations that have been expressed by some hon. Members, but, with this Bill, we are rapidly moving in the direction that most hon. Members desire. 
The Bill represents the first opportunity that our new Labour Government have had to take the action we have for so long advocated: to remove the worst and most obvious injustices in the emergency provisions. It is a tragedy that the provisions have existed for 20 years. At last, however—at their first opportunity—a Labour Government have removed the aspects of the provisions that most people find so abhorrent, especially internment without trial.
In opposition and now in government, Labour has consistently highlighted the fatal flaws in prevention of terrorism legislation—especially internment without trial, Diplock courts and a lack of safeguards in interrogation. I am pleased to note that the Bill will remedy some of the worst injustices.
The House must realise that the Bill takes only the first steps. Moreover, some Opposition Members may be planning to table amendments to remove the Bill's provision ending internment. I realise that internment is an important issue, but—in the interests of the peace process and of building confidence in the community of all Northern Ireland—it is essential that it is ended.
Not one section but all sections of the community have been affected by internment over the years. Furthermore, often the parts of the community that are least able to speak for themselves have been most affected. The worst aspect of internment is the fact that those who are truly guilty of crimes have been allowed to hide behind perceived human rights injustices. Internment has also earned us the international community's opprobrium, because it has been perceived as contrary to human rights.
I ask Opposition Members to rethink their objections to ending internment, and to think about the confidence that will be needed in the peace talks. We must ensure that we send all participants the message that we are intent on building confidence—not in one part of the community, but across the entire community of Northern Ireland.
It is wrong and unjust to say that the new Labour Government are soft on terrorism. I welcome the Government's announcement that they will introduce


anti-terrorist measures for both Britain and Northern Ireland, and I look forward, in the new year, to seeing that consultation document. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has given assurances that the measures will contain safeguards for the community of Northern Ireland.
We must make progress, and today's announcement that internment will end represents real progress for all of Northern Ireland. Ending internment will do much to restore confidence in legislation that has widely been regarded as unfair. The legislation has exposed Britain and British Governments to allegations of abusing human rights.
The Government have a clear human rights agenda, and I am proud to be a part of a Government who are adopting the European convention on human rights. This Bill accords entirely with our commitment to human rights—not only in our own backyard but around the world.
I remind hon. Members who oppose not only the removal of internment but other human rights measures that we are past mediaeval times. Britain must modernise its legislation and constitution, enabling us to be proud of our human rights record. The Bill represents a significant step in that direction.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Let us remember what this Bill is all about. When I was seven, I lived on the outskirts of Belfast, and did not watch the news much or listen to the proceedings of Parliament. I knew, however, that there was something called the troubles, and that I lived in them. One night, I was woken by my mother, who was hanging blankets across the windows, because there had been a bomb scare. There was a chance that the windows would be blown in, and she did not want glass shards to go through the house. I asked her what she was doing, and she simply said, "This is Northern Ireland." That is what the Bill is about.
The Bill deals with a place where life is not normal—although it is more normal now than it has been for two decades. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland is still not normal. The Liberal Democrats are willing to support the Bill because of the current situation. We are not pleased to be supporting the Bill, however, because to be pleased to support it would be to welcome the reasons for it. Surely no hon. Member believes that it is laudable that such a Bill is required.
The House seems to be united in the belief that we need such legislation. Although the Liberal Democrats think that such measures are a regrettable necessity, they are a necessity. We shall therefore be voting to give the Bill a Second Reading.
As there currently does not seem to be an emergency, are emergency provisions justified? The Lloyd inquiry answered the question well, saying:
Once lasting peace has been established in Northern Ireland there will continue to be a need for permanent counter-terrorist legislation to deal with the threat of international and domestic terrorism.
Lloyd's advice is doubly sound. It is not only the conclusion of an extensive and well-conducted inquiry, but the lasting peace described during its deliberations was abruptly ended by a series of bombs marking the end of that IRA ceasefire.
As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) eloquently said, we must have faith in the peace process. However, although it might be appropriate in the political context for us to regard both the loyalist and the republican ceasefires as permanent—as desperately as we might want that to be so—it does not follow that they should be regarded as permanent when framing security legislation.
Emergency powers should be kept to a minimum, and we should give the security forces all the powers they need—not all the powers they might need. There must be a balance. We must also remember the effect that some of the powers can have on some people in Northern Ireland. Misuse of brutal powers can create a brutalised society.
We welcome many of the Bill's changes to the emergency powers. More specifically, we certainly welcome the change in clause 2, because of concerns over Diplock courts, which have one judge and no jury. Northern Ireland's judicial system is simply not comparable to that on the mainland. Regardless of whether concerns over Diplock courts are justified, such concerns can undermine the objective of ensuring that justice is seen to be done. Such concerns can damage the outlook of those we must most encourage with confidence-building measures.
Although there are concerns over jury trials, the Bill's amendment of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 will provide welcome flexibility, easing the way towards a more normal judicial process in Northern Ireland.
I was confused about why, earlier in the debate, the question of opting in or out should have become such a big deal. Surely it is a matter of logic and of common sense to establish the most sensible route forward. There may be arguments on both sides, but please let us not pretend that deciding one way or the other is a major political problem. The problem could indeed be a logistical one.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is most desirable, if we can achieve it, is more trials before a jury?

Mr. Öpik: I and the Liberal Democrats agree that anything that we can do to create a normalised judicial process in Northern Ireland is to be welcomed—which is why certifying in has such an appeal. It makes the absence of a jury the exception rather than the rule. I welcome his intervention, so that I can emphasise that point.
I shall now turn to the clause that will remove the internment provisions. Those powers were last used in the early 1970s, and were widely regarded as counter-productive. The politics of internment come from the dark ages. In simple terms, internment converted terrorists into martyrs. That is why, as a matter of principle, and as a matter of strategic common sense, it is right to banish it for ever to the history books of Northern Ireland.
Because the powers have not been used for a long time, everyone presumes that they will not be used in the future, but that is not good enough. We have to make a statement, and I do not agree that such a statement is merely tokenistic. It is a profound statement of faith in the fact that Northern Ireland must become a more normal place to live, and that such kangaroo-court behaviour is not acceptable.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the recording, both audio and video of police interviews. It was once the prevalent view that taping of interviews would not be helpful, in part because interviews were a good environment for informers to provide information about terrorist activities. However, if the interviews were recorded, there is no reason to believe that valuable sources of intelligence would dry up.
While that argument was important, we always believed that it was overrated. Informers can inform in many other ways, but taped interviews may have other benefits, such as discouraging rough treatment by the interviewers. They also prevent interviewees from making mischievous claims that they were treated roughly. It works both ways.
The Liberal Democrats were pleased that silent video taping was included in the 1996 Act. However, it is a shame that it has taken so long for it to be introduced. I accept that the process set out in the legislation was lengthy, including the drawing up of a draft code of practice; public consultation; consideration of the replies; a new draft code; and instructions to the individual men and women who have to operate the new procedure.
Where has that process got to? The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made that point eloquently. It would be helpful if we could have a specific commitment on when video taping will be introduced in the Province.
There are some omissions from the Bill, and I shall cite two specific concerns. First, stop-and-search powers were introduced for good reasons. If applied diligently and cautiously, they are an important tool in the fight against terrorism.
The Bill does not include a reduction in the stop-and-search powers of the police and the Army, but there are currently reports of high levels of harassment by both services. That harassment normally takes the form of repeated stopping and questioning under the provisions of the emergency provisions Act. There are also reports of some demeaning stop-and-search incidents.
Although we may question the veracity of some of those reports, it is likely that the claims have an element of truth, and the stop-and-search powers can certainly cause deep resentment. When the Minister winds up, I should be grateful if he could summarise the plans, if any, to review the stop-and-search procedures.
Secondly, under the emergency powers, an interviewee has no right to a solicitor in the first 48 hours of police questioning—once again, for reasons of security. It is feared that the solicitor may warn other suspects. However, since 1991, inferences of guilt can be drawn from an interviewee's silence and having a solicitor present has become much more important. Otherwise, the weak-willed and the impressionable may be pressured into a false confession and the malicious and mischievous may be able to cry foul and pervert the course of justice. Some 19 people were refused immediate access to a solicitor in the first half of 1997 alone.
In a legal case, Murray successfully took the issue to the European Court of Human Rights, but the Government do not appear to have amended the legislation in accordance with its ruling. When the Human Rights Bill comes through the Lords, that problem will become apparent and pressing. Amending the situation will

involve legislative complexities, because the legislation that allows inferences of guilt to be drawn is different from the legislation that restricts the right to a solicitor.
However, I should like to know what plans, if any, the Government have to bring the legislation into line with the Human Rights Bill. I believe that to be a necessity, and time will dictate that it must be addressed. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment in the other place on the previous occasion that the emergency powers were discussed, which would have provided either that interviewees were denied a solicitor or that no inferences of guilt could be drawn from their silence. That issue must be resolved by the House.
The most important element in the question of Northern Ireland is not the Bill, but the need to solve the problems of the area. It is not enough to try to contain it through the emergency provisions.
We have seen some remarkable developments in Northern Irish politics. The settlement talks are a great endeavour, and the difficulties faced and risks taken by both sides cannot be overstated. Both sides have made themselves vulnerable in the search for peace. It takes courage and conviction to be involved in the process, and the participants can feel uncomfortable when justifying it to their supporters. To that extent, I have nothing but praise for the courage of those Ulster politicians who are trying so hard—with a genuine commitment to the settlement talks—to find a solution.
Set against that background, the Bill is a tactical but regrettable requirement It will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland, but it might provide the space for them to be solved. If that happens—I personally am optimistic that we will get a settlement of some sort—we must be optimistic that Northern Ireland will take vital and permanent steps along the road to peace. In that context, there might be a case for the early repeal of many of the provisions, which would be a further confidence-building measure for the people of Northern Ireland.
If everything goes to plan, I hope that we will find ourselves on the brink of a lasting settlement, in which tensions are recognised, acknowledged and accepted, differences are respected and valued, and communities are allowed to be sympathetic to each other without fear of retribution or being undermined by their own side. I know that that is how the residents of Northern Ireland feel. They love their country and are deeply committed to it.
It is our responsibility in Westminster and in Dublin to conspire to overcome the barriers, many of prejudice, that remain, in order to render the Bill obsolete. That challenge transcends party politics and if ever there is a subject about which we must be mature, it is this. I hope that the Bill will do its job, but more than anything I hope that the settlement talks will give us an opportunity to create an environment in the Province in which no child in future will be woken by his mother hanging blankets across the windows of his bedroom in case the bomb scare is not a hoax.

Mr. Roger Stott: I commend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on his consideration of the issue. He has a background in the matter, and I largely concur with his analysis.
I am a reasonable man, and I thought that the majority of the speech by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was measured, reasonable and appropriate


for someone speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Regrettably, his opening remarks were typical of those made by members of the previous Government about the Labour party being soft on terrorism.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I stood where he stands for five years, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). There was no ceasefire then, and I had to look under my car every day of the week when I took my children to school. I went to Crossmaglen, the Bogside, the Creggan and Turf Lodge, and I went to all the places from which terrorism emanated. I condemned them out of hand, no matter where I was. I stood four square at the Dispatch Box and condemned every terrorist atrocity. I was not soft on terrorism, and nor were my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North or my party. I take offence at Conservatives accusing us of being soft on terrorism. We objected to certain provisions in the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act that were corrosive of human rights.
I went to a dangerous place on the border with my old friend, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for whom I have a great deal of respect. The hon. Gentleman has been astonishingly courageous throughout his career in his fight against terrorism and in the way in which he has spoken against it. I like to think that I have too, together with other hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North—who is now back in his place—and I are the only two here this evening, I think, who were in the House 25 years ago to vote for the prevention of terrorism Act. We continued to vote for it as a temporary measure, until we discovered that some elements of it were unacceptable for reasons of human rights. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has mentioned exclusion orders—internal exile. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed that they shall no longer exist.
A young boy from Derry called John Matthews was brought before a magistrate, charged with terrorist offences. He was sent to a high-security prison for three months and then released and brought back to the same magistrate who had sent him down three months before. The prosecution withdrew all charges against John Matthews. I was in the court at the time.
The stipendiary magistrate said, "Well, you guys were before me three months ago saying this guy was a terrorist." They said, "Your worship, we withdraw all charges." In my presence, the magistrate said, "Young man, you can leave my court without a stain on your character." Five minutes later, he was rearrested, the previous Home Secretary signed an exclusion order on him, and he was sent back to Northern Ireland.
That is how the provisions have been used. I did not vote for the prevention of terrorism Act last time it was brought before the House, because it included provision for exclusion orders.
I agree with the Minister that it is essential that anti-terrorist legislation should be available to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced the Government's intention to present new proposals to replace the EPA and the PTA with permanent, UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation, to be published in a joint Home Office and Northern Ireland Office consultation

paper early in the new year. In the interim, before any fundamental reform of counter-terrorism legislation, a renewed and amended EPA will continue to provide the people of Northern Ireland with vital protection against the terrorist threat.
Having been involved with Northern Ireland matters for so long, I know that we have made substantial progress. My old friend the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is not content, but I think that most of the corrosive effects of the original EPA are being removed. I hope that we can get rid of the Act and introduce a comprehensive, UK-wide anti-terrorism Bill to deal with the problem.
I sincerely hope that we shall never again hear the allegation from the Conservatives that we are soft on terrorism, or that we have ever been. I find those remarks personally offensive.

Mr. Alan Clark: In coping with terrorism, the House has two principal, but distinct, obligations. Resistance to crude violence, or the threat of violence, must be maintained at all times, but no opportunity should be neglected to utilise and enhance the democratic process to abate that violence. The paradox of the Government's present position is that, by discarding one of their principal deterrent weapons—internment—they are indulging in unilateral disarmament before they have received any concessions.
I accept the sincerity of the view of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who spoke movingly on the subject, but I take a more practical attitude. We should never discard any mechanism or disarm in any way until we know what concession we will receive in return—and, hopefully, already have it in the bank.
I should like to add a short personal comment. Almost all of us have suffered the experience of being deliberately—and with relish—misrepresented in the press. As we all know, there is no point in denying anything, embellishing comments or attempting to put them in context. The media do not want enlightenment; they want controversy. It is safer by far to stay within Jowett's precept—"never explain; never apologise" —with the exception of remarks made in the House, where one can engage in debate with hon. Members of all parties and have one's words accurately recorded by the Official Report.
I therefore hope to put in context some remarks that were attributed to me at the Conservative conference in Blackpool last month, and to make some further reflective comment on the situation in Northern Ireland. At that time, I drew attention to something that I had written 12 years earlier: that one—one—approach to the problem of terrorism was the instant execution of a large number of known activists. Even then, I warned—this was not reported-that that would buy no more than 20 years.
Also unreported was my recent assessment that defence planners, faced with chronic infantry overstretch, should consider with as much detachment as they are allowed the fact that, in one small part of the United Kingdom, it is necessary to station 14 battalions of infantry with fully armed weapons and body armour. The policy conclusions that should be drawn from that are uncomfortable, but not necessarily invalid for that reason.
In neither instance was I recommending a particular course of action. I was simply making observations, as an historian and military analyst.
Of course, there is not the slightest value in my asserting that. As we all know, it is not actual but perceived truth that counts. Indeed, my own party's press office lost no time in briefing journalists to the effect that I was a dinosaur. That was perfectly all right by me, because the dinosaur has a thick skin, and has been around for 3 million years.
However, there are certain facts from which there is no escape. The IRA is the most resilient and formidable of all resistance movements in the west. More than 70 years ago, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was shot dead at his front door in Eaton square. Less than 20 years ago, one of our own number was murdered on the exit ramp from the House of Commons car park itself. In addition to those individual acts of assassination, the IRA has taken the lives of hundreds of innocent people, and caused immense misery and suffering.
It may be that participation in the political process—true and genuine participation—can come only after the combatants have fought themselves to a standstill. We have seen that in European civil wars—in Spain in the 1930s, in Lebanon in the 1970s and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Ho wever, one hopes that things need not endure that long, and that the outcome will not be so wasteful and tragic.
In the meantime, there remains one curious omission in our line of approach. It is a political omission. Those representing and elected by the people—I designedly employ a term that will be familiar to Labour Members, because they have all been instructed by the Prime Minister to use it as often as possible—in Mid-Ulster and in Belfast, West are prevented from taking their seats, and even from entering this building.
I have always argued that we in this place have no authority to exclude anyone if he or she has been returned to sit here as a result of due electoral process. I shall remind the House of what I said on 22 June 1981 during proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill, which related to the attempt, contrived as I believed it to be, by the House of Commons to prevent Bobby Sands from taking his seat, although he had been elected for the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
I said:
There are many measures relating to the preservation of the rule of law in Northern Ireland that I would support. Some Opposition Members" —
the roles of the parties at that time were the reverse of what they are now—
might disagree with some of those, but effectively to disenfranchise a part of the Province is not one of them …There is an unhappy mixture between political and constitutional considerations and the House should be extremely wary when a constitutional measure is put before it that has overtly political motivation …
Every hon. Member owes his position to the corporate wisdom—variegated and diffuse though it may be—of a variety of those entities, with their different characteristics, allegiances and viewpoints, that are scattered throughout the United Kingdom. It is wholly improper and an abuse of our position to isolate one of those units and tell it who it may or may not send to this place." —[Official Report, 22 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 67.]
I readily understand that there should be concern in some, indeed in many, quarters about the oath of allegiance to the Crown and the high importance attached

to it. However, I remind the House that when the returning officer reads out the results of an election, he gives the total number of votes cast for each candidate, and then says, "I declare that the undermentioned" —whoever that may be—"shall be returned as the Member of Parliament for the constituency of" —wherever it may be.
Is it really in the forefront of the minds of all those who return an hon. Member to this place—any hon. Member, let alone the Members who are entitled to sit here and represent the constituencies of Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West—that the person that they have returned will and must take the oath of allegiance? I rather doubt it.
How many hon. Members in this place were so concerned before they rode away from here in 1642 to do battle with the King's army at Edgehill, Marston Moor and Naseby, that they carried in the forefront of their minds the oath that they had taken to the Crown?
Many years ago your own predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was put under arrest because he was defending the rights of Members of this place to stand apart and to be distant from the Crown—or the Executive, as it may presently be termed—and to provide a balance.
Our proper role in this place is to balance the Executive, not to swear allegiance to it. The House of Commons has always balanced to some degree or another the weight and power of the Executive. It has been in existence for more than 350 years in that role. We have in our time had to swear an oath of loyalty in one form or another to the house of Stuart, to the house of Orange, to the house of Hanover, to the house of Battenberg and to the house of Windsor. And for all that time—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clark: In the fulness of time, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to finish my sentence.
And for all that time, the Catholics in Ireland have suffered, or believed themselves to have suffered, repression.

Mr. Hogg: I do not necessarily disagree with my right hon. Friend's conclusions, but he has made one mistake in his argument, which he may like to clarify. He is talking about swearing allegiance to the Executive—that is the word that he uses. He seems to be confounding the Executive with the Crown for those purposes, and I do not think that he means to do that. His conclusions may be right; none the less I think that he would like to make a distinction between the Crown and the Executive.

Mr. Clark: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I remind him that he is going rather far from the subject of tonight's debate, which is the Second Reading of a Bill? I would be grateful if he got back on track fairly quickly.

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course I bow to your ruling. This is a Second Reading, on which some latitude is often permitted. I do not feel that I am straying any further than the


hon. Gentlemen who spent many minutes of the time of the House discussing the future and validity of higher education in Belfast.
Whether or not you want me to deal with my right hon. Friend's intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I believe it is relevant to the introduction of the political process into the attempt to find a settlement in Northern Ireland? After all, the Act that we are discussing is closely related to that, and to regulating, restricting and confining within legal limits illegal activity in Northern Ireland. It is my contention that it should also be supplemented by political measures.
I take no sides in the controversy. Often there are impossible choices to be faced in a true democracy—choices that were exemplified by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said about internment and by what Liberal Members have said. However, always overriding must be one imperative—that there should never be seen to be surrender, or apparent surrender, to naked violence.
Moreover, where the democratic process has been followed and the ballot box has returned its verdict, we should not be able to interfere. If we deny that right—effectively removing a constituency from the United Kingdom—we are encouraging all those who argue the case that it should no longer be a part of the United Kingdom. That is the essential distinction which we must master.
As for the oath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which would you or the House regard as more honourable—to refuse to take the oath on the grounds of conscience or commitment, or to take it, as did the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), while smirking at the television cameras with his fingers crossed?

Mr. Andrew Hunter: As the 1996 emergency provisions Act expires in August next year, I support the Government's decision to place in this year's programme a measure to fill the vacuum that would otherwise exist. I therefore do not quarrel with the bald fact that the Government propose to extend by two years the life of the 1996 Act, making it effective to 2000.
Continuing in the spirit of co-operation, good will and charity towards the Government, I suppose it could be said that it is a matter of considerable relief that the Bill leaves untouched most of the provisions of the 1996 Act. Their collective value has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, and most are needed and used now—notwithstanding the so-called "ceasefires", which are in any event only tactical. The powers can be used most extensively in the event of a resumption of widespread violence. I note with interest that the Government have not pursued, for the time being, the theme of certifying in rather than certifying out, and I am glad that the powers to stop and search remain.
I shall be ultra-selective in my remarks on the Bill. I wish to ask some questions on a part of clauses 4 and 5 that I do not understand. The 1996 Act, as the Minister reminded us, provided for silent video recordings of police interviews with persons detained under the 1989 PTA. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill extend the practice in

two ways, and I do not quarrel with that. First, they provide for video and audio recording and, secondly, they widen their use to
interviews held by police officers in such other circumstances as may be specified in an order".
My question is this—what precisely are we to understand from the words "in such other circumstances"? Do they mean under the provisions of legislation other than the PTA? If not, what do they mean? If they mean other legislation, can the Government be more specific? Will they indicate which provisions of which legislation they have in mind? What criteria will the Secretary of State use to determine what should or should not be included in an order? For instance, would the criteria extend to the criminal record, if any, of the person being questioned, or to his known support of paramilitary organisations? It is not unreasonable to query why such a little-defined executive authority should be given to the Secretary of State.
As I see it, the key issue of the Bill is internment, and I do not apologise for returning to the subject. The arguments are well rehearsed and there is no need to recite them in detail. It is a fact of life that, although it has remained on the statute book, the power to detain without trial has lapsed technically in the legislative context and practically in the context of its usage.
For my part, I accept that internment is an infringement of civil liberties, and it is folly to deny that. I agree that internment in the 1970s was counterproductive and the overall effect was to strengthen, rather than weaken, the IRA. However, I reject the proposition that we should therefore now abandon the power to intern. I fear that, in seeking to do that, the Government are making a serious mistake. The fact that internment failed in the 1970s certainly does not mean that it is bound to fail in the future—far from it.
In the 1970s, we suffered from woefully inadequate and inaccurate intelligence and, to put it mildly, the mood of the time was far from supportive. Internment was not applied even-handedly. In such circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that it backfired. However, times change; such circumstances do not and will not always prevail.
The principled objection to internment—the civil liberties argument—has strength, but I do not believe that it carries the day. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay); although the power has not been used for 20 years and has lapsed in the technical sense—and although we may dislike it because it infringes civil liberties—it should nevertheless be retained because we cannot foresee the future. We simply do not know what may happen when, and what the turn of events may be.
We cannot and should not completely discount the possibility—however remote it may sometimes seem—that, at some time in the future, circumstances may arise in which the introduction of internment could be justified as the lesser of two evils because it could save lives—perhaps the lives of innocent bystanders. For that reason alone, I would argue that it is folly to abandon the power now.
Clause 3 should not and cannot be seen in isolation, and it is an illustration of the Government's underlying approach to Northern Ireland. I do not doubt for one moment that that approach is well intentioned, but I believe


it to be fundamentally flawed. The Provisionals have not earned their place at the negotiating table. They are not unequivocally and exclusively committed to non-violence and democracy, nor have they any intention of decommissioning unless the talks deliver what they want.
As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has said, the Provisionals are exploiting the process for all they can, and they are doing so successfully. They won concessions by delaying the first ceasefire, and gained further concessions during that ceasefire. Even more concessions were gained as the price of the second ceasefire, and one can legitimately ask the Government if there is a limit to the price that they will pay to maintain that second ceasefire. That is the wider context in which clause 3 and the ending of the power of internment must be placed—the context of what is in effect, although not intention, a policy of appeasement.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I do not believe that any Member of Parliament could approve emergency legislation with any relish; by its very nature, it shows that an abnormal situation obtains in the section of the community to which it applies. It also requires that the local community be denied rights enjoyed by other parts of the United Kingdom.
I approach this debate, and the issue of internment in particular, as one of those who opposed the use of internment in the 1970s. I did not oppose then, nor do I now, the provision that permits the use of internment, but I did not believe that the circumstances were right for using it in the 1970s, and I think that subsequent events have shown that to be a fair judgment.
The circumstances were not right for two reasons: the first was that all other means of dealing with the problem had not been exhausted, and the law was still capable of dealing with the situation; the second, and most obvious, was that the intelligence was not available to get the right people. When 80-year-olds who had been involved in the campaign of the 1920s started being picked up for internment, it suggested that perhaps the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not have available to it the most up-to-date records on the basis of which to take decisions and advise the Prime Minister.
I opposed the use of internment then, and I do not believe that circumstances are such that it is likely to be used now, but, to answer the earlier question posed by a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I can indeed conceive of circumstances in which it could perhaps be necessary, even though we all hope that it will not be. While that possibility remains, the power should be retained on the statute book.
People argue—I find it hard to accept—that I should not be pressing for decommissioning and that we should allow the weapons to rust; does that not suggest that the best way in which to deal with internment is to let it wither on the vine? If internment is not needed, it will not annoy anyone, because the power will simply not be exercised.
It is clear why the Government are introducing the measure. They are removing internment for a political reason, as a sop to the IRA. They have said that specifically: the Minister, who is raising his eyebrows, said that we had to move the process forward. What on

earth did he mean by that? The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) explained clearly that it had to be done to win the confidence of the nationalist community.
I sometimes wonder whether anyone is concerned about winning the confidence of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, the people who have suffered most as a result of the violence. I do not believe that internment should be removed from the statute book, but I am not arguing that the circumstances exist in which it is likely to be used.
I do not have as much difficulty with silent video recordings as I do with audio recordings. Given the reason for introducing recordings, silent video recordings would in many ways have been better. It was argued that excessive force was being used and that people were encouraged by physical or other abuse to make statements that they would not otherwise have made. That could well have been overcome by silent video recordings.
The measure does not concern me so much that I would be greatly opposed to its introduction, but I hope that it, and the way in which it is introduced in Northern Ireland, will do nothing to make more difficult the Royal Ulster Constabulary's task of getting the information and intelligence that save lives in Northern Ireland.
In 1994, Members of Parliament had to make a judgment, as those outside will have done, about whether they considered the Provisional IRA's announcement at the end of August to amount to a cessation of violence. There are clear criteria that could have been used to make that judgment. For instance, was there any repentance on the part of the Provisional IRA for the terrorist activity in which it had been involved? Was there any sign of remorse or expression of regret? Far from it: it congratulated its so-called volunteers on the murder campaign in which they had been involved.
Did the statement contain a commitment to cease violence permanently? Of course not: it was clear that the IRA intended to use the cessation of violence simply as a means to extract concessions from the then Government, and to resume violence when the tactic was no longer of value.
There were no apologies in the statement for the victims of IRA terrorism, and it was clear from the wording that there was nothing there to convince anyone that the ceasefire was genuine and would last. I made that judgment at that stage, and the IRA's deeds thereafter could have helped anyone to make a judgment: the Provisionals continued to develop new weapons, target individuals, raise funds and recruit—all activities suggesting that they intended to restart their campaign.
The IRA once again decided to use tactically, to gain concessions, what it describes as its armed struggle. It switches it off, then on again. When it switched it off on the most recent occasion, the Secretary of State, not having learnt from the 17 months of the IRA's previous tactical cessation of violence, determined that she was much wiser than anyone else and would be able to assess within five weeks the genuineness and permanence of the ceasefire.
With a five-week timetable, it was not hard for the IRA to send its so-called volunteers on a five-week holiday; but, as sure as night follows day, the Provisional IRA campaign has started to wind up now that that time has elapsed. The Minister is deluding himself, or


attempting to delude us, by suggesting that the ceasefire is holding; it is fraying all round the edges, and obvious terrorist acts are taking place.
The Minister is closing his eyes to terrorism. Does he consider what is described as a punishment beating to be a terrorist act? If a gun were put at the back of his knee and his kneecap was blown off, he might consider it a breach of the ceasefire. That would, I suspect, have been the view of Tone Donnelly, a 21-year old from west Belfast, whose kneecap was blown out last night by the IRA's so-called punishment squad. We suspect that he will be permanently crippled.
That was only one of a number of beatings carried out by the provisional IRA and other paramilitary organisations. It seems that, if they do not claim responsibility, no blame is attached to them. It is not only a matter of paramilitary beatings: a man was killed in Bangor, and the security forces know that a loyalist paramilitary organisation was responsible; a man was killed only last week in Belfast, and the security forces know that the loyalist organisation responsible is associated with people who are sitting at the talks table.
How on earth can the Minister say, as he did in his opening speech, that the loyalist and IRA ceasefires are holding? They are doing nothing of the sort. The Minister is closing his eyes to obvious facts. Many of us wonder what paramilitary organisations have to do before being considered to have breached the ceasefire and the Mitchell principles. They would have to go a long way before this Government were prepared to face that reality.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) gave some details of a speech made by a leading member of Sinn Fein-IRA at the weekend. When Councillor Francie Molloy spoke in a pub in Cullyhanna, he thought that he was speaking to 150 of his Provo friends. What he did not know was that two journalists were in the crowd, taking a full note of what he had to say. The Minister invites us to find a transcript. I have a transcript of what Molloy said at Cullyhanna, which was taken from one of those journalists, and I will give the Minister the benefit of a few sentences from it.
Mr. Molloy said:
Unity is our strength. We see the obstacles and try to counteract them. If we put up one finger it is a very weak and delicate piece of our bodies. But with our clinched fist it is very strong, hard to break open.
And we will be strong when we are together, united in one fist facing the British government whether it be Oglaigh na hEireann" —
my pronunciation is probably wrong, but the interpretation is "Provisional IRA", for those who are not acquainted with the Gaelic language—
Sinn Fein, the prisoners, all of the different aspects of the struggle all contained in the one body facing the Brits and taking them on".
What does it mean if the IRA is taking on the Brits? Is that consistent with the Mitchell principles and with that party's participation in the talks process?
Mr. Molloy continues:
This phase of negotiations may fall apart …And whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best. But we don't go back to the same tactics we used maybe 20 years ago. We go back with new tactics, we devise new methods, new strategies and we go back again to face the Brits again in negotiations.

The phrasing is clear—if the negotiations do not work, go back to violence, soften everyone up a bit more and then go back to the negotiations. He continued:
There's no one asking everyone to take on the role of the volunteer. Those who want, still there's certainly a role for them to play as a volunteer
of the IRA. Clearly, he was drumming up support for the Provisional IRA, identifying himself with it and calling on it to take on the Brits, among whom I class myself.
Those actions are in contradiction of the Mitchell principles. Lest the Minister is not aware of them, principle 1 is a commitment to
democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues".
Another is a commitment to
renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force" —
and so forth. Clearly, Mr. Molloy's remarks were in contravention of those principles.
What does the IRA have to do, and what do Sinn Fein spokesmen have to say, for this Government to determine that they are acting contrary to the Mitchell principles? Not only are Francie Molloy's statements contrary to those, but they fall within the incitement to hatred legislation. If a Unionist had made those comments in support of a loyalist paramilitary organisation, he or she would have had a visit from the Royal Ulster Constabulary by now.
Furthermore, the comments were a breach of the local government code that Mr. Molloy was required to sign to stand for election. He is not allowed to support or approve of any terrorist organisation. His speech, from which I quoted only a few sentences, is full of approval for the Provisional IRA. It simply is not good enough for the Minister to close his eyes and pretend that all these events occurring around him have no impact on the ceasefire and the IRA's position.
I am sure that the Minister has seen in The Irish Times a column written by Jim Cusack, a security correspondent known to have lines into the Provisional IRA, who in the past has been able to break stories as to the IRA's thinking. This week he again indicates that IRA units in the north have been told by their leadership that the ceasefire is temporary. The Secretary of State made her decision because she was satisfied that the IRA-Sinn Fein organisation was exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Have the Government any cause to doubt whether it is still of the same mind?
Finally, like many other people in Northern Ireland, I become more and more frustrated with a Government who have eyes but see not, and who have ears but hear not, things that affect so intimately the security of this nation. We wonder when they will put it to the Provisional IRA movement that it will go out of the talks process if it does not abide by the rules. I do not accept that it ever did; it was the Government who accepted it.
The criteria were set down by two Prime Ministers. They said that anyone participating in constitutional negotiations had to be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Are the Government telling us that they have a different yardstick against which they will judge the participation of Sinn Fein-IRA? For, if the same judgment is to be made, I await the Government's response on the issues that I have raised tonight, and on


other issues of which they are well aware, involving the IRA's participation in acts of violence at present in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: We have had a typically robust and wide debate, ranging from the potential university campus in west Belfast to fringe meetings at Conservative party conferences, with due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark).
A number of important questions have been put to the Minister, covering all aspects of security policy and dealing with the peace process. I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will be delighted that he has two hours in which to do full justice to all those pertinent questions. I shall deal with some of the points made, but in a moment.
This has also been an extremely timely debate, because, if the reports are to be believed, the process could be entering a crucial phase. Of course, I am referring to the widespread newspaper reports of splits within the republican movement—Sinn Fein and the IRA—over future strategy. Sinn Fein now seems to be playing down what appears to be a number of high-level resignations from its organisation in recent days.
If the reports are true, they are disturbing, to say the least, as indeed are the remarks made at the weekend by the leading Sinn Fein councillor and reputed moderate party strategist, Francie Molloy. The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made that point. Molloy's comments, which were no doubt intended to reassure republican activists, were full of bellicose and ritualistic anti-British venom. They certainly sit oddly by the side of his party's professed commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence—another point made clearly and eloquently by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
Let us remind ourselves of what Mr. Molloy said, which was printed in The Daily Telegraph on Monday 17 November. He stated:
This phase of negotiations may fall apart, it may not succeed. And whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best.
Most hon. Members present will have their own ideas as to what precisely Sinn Fein-IRA does best.
Like the Government, we hope that Sinn Fein's commitment to the democratic process is not in doubt; but such comments hardly inspire the sort of confidence—not least among the other parties participating in the talks process—that will be necessary if those talks are to be successful. Sinn Fein-IRA needs to be clear about one thing: a commitment to democracy and non-violence is not a flexible principle, to be adopted one day and discarded the next when things are not going the way they want. If we are to take Sinn Fein at its word when it professes its democratic credentials, the sort of language used at the weekend has no place and we should have no more of such ambivalence. I trust that the Government will continue to monitor closely such statements.
The comments serve as a welcome reminder to the House of the necessity of renewing the emergency provisions for a further two years, and they totally

vindicate the Opposition's approach to the Government's proposed changes, especially the dropping of the power of internment. That approach is based on a hard-headed assessment of the realities of the current situation in Northern Ireland, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we have been here before, only to see the hopes for a lasting peace cruelly dashed. Like all hon. Members, we hope that Sinn Fein has ceased to be an apologist for violence, but we require a good deal more evidence of its democratic intentions and credentials before we can support a weakening of the powers contained in the legislation.
Nothing more graphically illustrates the capacity of Sinn Fein-IRA to split than the events of recent days. It is an enduring feature of violent Irish republicanism—indeed, of paramilitary groups from across the community. By seeking to discard the power of internment today, the Government are being over-hasty and potentially reckless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) ably pointed out. For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that the Government do not come to regret their action.
Our other concern is the significant increase in the number of scheduled offences that will become eligible for certifying out, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. I know that the Minister of State is on slightly uncomfortable territory here, as it was only in March this year, during the renewal debate on the 1996 Act, that he argued for the system to be changed to one of certifying in. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) embarrassed Ministers by pointing out that that was Labour party policy when in opposition, and he made a strong case for the change to certifying in.
Judging from the Hansard in front of me, the Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, also made an eloquent case for that policy. When he winds up, I hope that he will explain the change to the House in a way that we can understand, because the Minister of State did not convince me, or the hon. Member for Hull, North, that the reasons for the policy change were valid. We look forward to a full explanation why, within the space of some six or seven months, Labour party policy on certifying out or certifying in has effectively done a U-turn. We welcome that change of heart and hope that Ministers will continue to support the policy as and when the review of the prevention of terrorism Act and associated legislation takes place, some time next year.
I shall now pick up on some of the contributions with which I concur and I hope the Minister will give full answers to hon. Members in his winding-up speech. Several hon. Members sought an assurance that the Government will not seek to appeal over the heads of the political parties for a solution in Northern Ireland; and that consent, as it applies to the second element of the triple lock, means the people of Northern Ireland alone. We also seek an assurance that any measures to ease security on the ground should be taken only following the closest consultation with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable.
Why do the Government consider it necessary to amend the Act in such a way now, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's announcement of the review of all the anti-terrorist legislation in the new year? It is only six or seven months since the previous Government brought this legislation to the House, so we are interested in learning


why the current Government have seen fit to introduce changes at this early date—bearing in mind that there is a full review in process and some of the matters being debated could have waited until the new year. Finally, on the question of scheduled offences through the Diplock procedure, can the Minister tell us how many charges have been brought under any of those offences in recent years, other than those that are specifically terrorist-related?
Northern Ireland does not yet enjoy a permanent and lasting peace. We wish the Government well in their efforts, through the talks process, to secure those objectives. As long as they respect the fundamental principles for a settlement that have been negotiated over several years between successive British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties, they will enjoy our support. The most fundamental of those principles is consent: nothing must be implemented that contravenes that principle—of that, there can be no room for doubt.
In the event of a settlement and a lasting peace, it might be that the emergency provisions could be relaxed, although we believe that there would still be a strong case for permanent anti-terrorist legislation to remain on the statute book. We are, regrettably, far from that point today, for all the reasons stated by my hon. Friends and me. Despite our grave doubts about the Government's wisdom in removing the power of internment, we shall not—unlike the Labour party in opposition—use that as an excuse to play party politics. The issues at stake and the legislation itself are too important for that, so we have no hesitation in supporting the Government tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): I listened with great interest to the debate, as I have retained a special interest in the emergency legislation. I regret that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is not in the Chamber—he has put in his apology for being absent due to other engagements. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I hope that this is the last time the House will be involved in a Second Reading of an emergency provisions Act.
The debate has been long and, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) described it, robust, which is consistent with past experience of these matters. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken, expressed their view and contributed to the debate. I shall respond to as many points as possible, but I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me for replying only to the matters that are relevant to the Bill and thus imposing a discipline on myself that not all hon. Members applied.
Many hon. Members correctly identified the key matter as the removal of internment from British legislation. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) referred to that as merely token politics. That legislation that is deeply disturbing to everyone with any concern about human rights should be regarded as token politics is worrying. Internment is a matter of considerable importance.
Let me remind hon. Members what internment means: it involves a decision by the Government to deprive individuals of their liberty, without trial and without the normal safeguards which the law provides for the

protection of the accused. Hon. Members frequently said that we must not surrender to violence, but it is possible to interpret internment as a surrender to violence, because it involves using the methods of violence to deprive people of their liberty without the safeguards of courts of law. That is why it is so offensive. It has never been a means of achieving stability in the community. If we were to use it, the effect would be quite the reverse.
I was again disturbed by the hon. Member for Bracknell asking why we are removing internment now and his suggestion that, if minority groups became involved in violence after a settlement, it would be time to apply internment. That seemed to be the implication of his remarks. I cannot think of a means by which violence would more surely return than the introduction of internment in those circumstances.
It is worth remembering Lord Colville' s review of the Act in 1990. He identified and discussed in some detail the difficulties associated with the operation of internment and its repercussions on the nationalist community. He noted that perhaps the most sinister by-product was the tendency to strengthen terrorist networks and to increase hostility and criminal skills among those detained, and that it served significantly to undermine respect for the law and the judicial process.
We must take seriously the international community's perception of internment. It is important to establish our democratic and law-abiding credentials in this firm way. I was pleased by the praise of Labour Members for our having taken the first possible opportunity to honour our commitment in opposition to remove internment from the Act. That is an important statement of political principle that does honour to this Government and to this country.
Several hon. Members mentioned audio and video recording. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked about the delay in introducing silent video recording. I am pleased to say that it is now being done at Castlereagh. I cannot answer for the delay that occurred before 1 May, but one reason for the delay since is that we knew that we were going to introduce audio recording as well. It was important to ensure that the systems that we introduced would be compatible. It is more complicated than it sounds, because there has to be a code of practice and staff must be trained. We stated in opposition that we would bring in audio recording, which introduces a new element into procedures.

Mr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response to my intervention. My point is that the audio recording system should be introduced long before 2000, although I admit that the introduction of such technology is complicated, as we know from our Scottish experience.

Mr. Worthington: We are moving ahead on this. Audio recording will also be an important step forward for the forces of security and justice. One of the most compelling arguments was made by Mr. Justice Kerr in the case of the Ballymurphy Seven when he said:
it is my confident opinion that had
audio recording
been available, this trial could have been completed comfortably within a few weeks instead of the 16 months that it occupied.
That would not only have saved money but dealt with any specious arguments used against the security forces. It is a safeguard for both sides, and I was surprised that the previous Government did not take that step.
Let me move on to the tangled subject of scheduling, certifying in and certifying out, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has taken his PhD. All Labour Members agree that it would be most desirable to get away from the Diplock system. We would like to introduce normal law in normal circumstances, and that includes trial by jury. The Government should be given credit for adding to the number of offences that the Attorney-General may certify out at his discretion. That represents a significant move towards reducing the number of potential cases to be tried before Diplock courts.
As I know from when I led for the Opposition in Committee, we have always argued that it is not feasible to move with a big bang from a Diplock system to a non-Diplock system. We are moving gradually. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will at any time be able by making an order to take a collection of offences out of the Diplock procedure.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend said that this change would be "significant". My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), in a reply that I received today, said:
It is not possible to predict the number of cases which will be heard before a jury as a result of the proposed changes. It will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to determine, on the merits of each individual case before him, whether or not to certify it out.
We do not know whether this is a significant or insignificant step. It would be significant if we went to certifying in.

Mr. Worthington: If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, he asked me to do the impossible: to predict the number of cases that will be affected. I cannot do that, because I do not know what offences will be committed. I give credit to the previous Government—this was raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—for having achieved some progress towards normalisation: 85 per cent. of the cases that would qualify for scheduling are now taken under normal court procedure.
Hon. Members are correct to say that, in opposition, we said that we wanted to certify in rather than certify out. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is very alert and can read Hansard. He knows that I made that statement in opposition. Since then, we have consulted on the matter and the Attorney-General has pointed out that it might be regarded as invidious if he had to certify in. As the prosecuting authority, he would be in the position of denying particular defendants trial by jury.

Mr. McNamara: We have that already.

Mr. Worthington: With respect, it is not the same. If we pass the Bill, the decision about normality—we all regret this law in a way—would be that of the House, not the prosecuting authority. The Attorney-General has reasonably said that it would look invidious if the decision to deny someone a trial by jury was explicitly his, as the prosecuting authority.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it is a specific responsibility of the Attorney-General to give a person a trial by jury under the exceptions that he is laying down, so the position has not changed at all.

Mr. Worthington: I have explained the point, and I believe that I have made it clear. It is a question of

balance, and I believe that my hon. Friend and I would agree that the key is that, by whatever method, we are moving towards normality, and each year a smaller proportion of cases is held under Diplock procedure. That is the key factor, which we should receive credit for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised the issue of legal advice. He said that, as one of the "normal suspects", he had been approached by the Committee for the Administration of Justice on that matter. I have ceased to be one of the "normal suspects" so I have not received the correspondence from the Committee for the Administration of Justice that he has received.
I cannot give a full answer to his point now. If the number of cases in which legal advice has been deferred has increased, the increase may or may not be significant. The number of such cases is now very small and information on the nature of each case will help us to understand whether the change is significant. As those figures were not drawn to my attention, I cannot give a full answer at present, but I undertake that a letter will be sent to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) asked about clause 4, in which there was a point that he could not understand. It is simply an amendment of an oversight in the current Act, regarding silent video recordings of police interviews at holding centres. Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities, and also occasionally a magistrate may order a person to be produced to a holding centre for questioning. In such cases, arrest and detention will not have been under the PTA. The clause will ensure that such interviews are recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Member for Basingstoke, if to no one else.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned the John Murray case. There has been a long period of consideration because it is an extremely complicated case, raising issues regarding the treatment of suspects under emergency and criminal law. The European Commission of Human Rights judgment has required very wide consultation within Government, but I can give the undertaking that the Home Secretary has written to colleagues and responses are being gathered on this matter at present.
In closing tonight's debate, I ask hon. Members to view the Bill, not in isolation, but in its wider context. The Bill aims to provide a proportionate response to the terrorist threat, so it must be reviewed against the background of the prevailing security and political scene. There has been much discussion of that tonight and I do not intend to rehearse that, but I say by way of summary that, although we are encouraged by the progress that has been made in the talks, and although terrorist groups maintain their ceasefires, we are profoundly conscious of the fact that other such groups, such as the Continuity Army Council, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force, have not called ceasefires.
That means that the people of Northern Ireland, the Government and the security forces who protect us all cannot drop their guard. Only a few weeks ago, on 16 September, a 400 lb bomb exploded in Markethill in the vicinity of a primary school, a police station and a


cattle market, causing serious damage. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke of the great damage that might have occurred in the motor tax office in Derry.
Postal bombs have been sent to several Unionist Members, civil servants in the Anglo-Irish Secretariat have been told to resign or become legitimate targets, and last week a device capable of exploding was sent to the Conservative party offices in Bangor, County Down. All that is evidence, which we do not ignore, of the aim and ability of some groups to continue to cause disruption and destruction. We are determined that those who are engaged in such vile activities shall be pursued under law, and the renewal for a further two years of the main provisions of the EPA will allow that to happen.
That brings me to the Government's longer-term plans and the wider context in which the Bill must be viewed. It is an interim measure, pending the introduction of permanent legislation for which I believe that the Government should get credit, because what we promised we will deliver. The permanent legislation will be sufficiently flexible to take account of any continuing threat from terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland and to take account of the current and future threat from international terrorist groups.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Worthington: In bringing the Bill before the House, the Government are acting to ensure that the security forces and the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland can continue after August 1998 to deal effectively with terrorism and we are acting to correct inherent flaws in the existing provisions. I believe that we all gain from correcting those flaws. In terms of the ability to counter terrorism, nothing is lost and much is gained as a result of the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to the Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State by virtue of that Act. — [Mr. Pope.]>

Question agreed to

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Homeless Persons (Priority Need) (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 31st July, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Appeals) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2542), dated 27th October 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2543), dated 27th October 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.

SUMMER TIME

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 27th October.

MERCHANT SHIPPING

That the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Maritime Differential Correction Systems) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

PUBLIC HEALTH

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dounreay Nuclear Establishment) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2622), dated 29th October 1997, which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved. —[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you were aware that the Minister, when he responded to the debate with an hour and a half left to go, deliberately ignored those Members who speak on behalf of constituencies in Northern Ireland. He responded to every other hon. Member who had spoken, but deliberately ignored two Unionists representing Northern Ireland. There may be little that you can do about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should have thought that, as a matter of courtesy, the Minister might have accorded some recognition to the fact that we have sat in the House all afternoon.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am dealing with that point of order.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that, after the way that I behaved today, I should come to the defence of Ministers and say that I heard my hon. Friend the Minister, in summing up, say specifically that he was not going to refer to some of the matters that were raised by the hon. Gentlemen, so they may not have had the answer they wanted, but they were certainly referred to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The way in which Ministers respond to debates is not a matter for the Chair.

NHS (North Essex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Simon Burns: I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the situation in the health service in north Essex, particularly in my constituency in the mid-Essex part of north Essex.
My constituents and I are justifiably proud of the fantastic health service that we have in mid-Essex. More than 60 per cent. of patients are members of fundholding practices. There are two main hospitals in my constituency—St. John's hospital and Broomfield hospital—which are staffed by excellent consultants, doctors and nurses, as well as some very good administrators who try to streamline their operations so that the maximum amount of money available can be spent on providing health care to my constituents rather than on excessive bureaucracy. The way in which all those staff look after my constituents is second to none, and deserves the highest commendation.
Over the past 10 years, we have witnessed the provision of successful health care and improvements in the services available to my constituents. Until the past decade or so, far too many of my constituents and others in north Essex had to travel to London or up to Addenbrooke's in Cambridge for specialist services. That obviously caused discomfort, not to mention expense, to the patients who had to travel for treatment, and to their family and friends who wanted to visit them while they were receiving treatment.
In the past 10 years, a plethora of enhanced services and new services has come to Broomfield hospital in particular so as to minimise that movement of patients down to London or outside the region for specialist care. The nationally famous burns and plastic surgery unit is being transferred from St. Andrew's in Billericay to Broomfield in Chelmsford—a move brought about not by cuts or financial considerations, but because it is such a centre of excellence that the site at St. Andrew's in Billericay was too small and the unit needed to move to a green-field site within the Broomfield hospital area to carry on its fantastic work in new premises.
I was particularly pleased about that decision, because there was at one time a possibility that the unit would not stay within the north Essex area, but would be transferred to the M25 area towards London, which I would have regarded as a retrograde step. In the past five years, as a logical flow-through of the reforms in the health service in London, more and more services have been coming locally to areas such as north Essex to serve its growing population.
We have benefited from enhanced cancer services in Chelmsford and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). There has been an improvement in breast cancer screening. The clinic in Chelmsford closed down for a few months last year, not for financial reasons, but because a member of staff resigned and another qualified member of staff could not be found immediately. The clinic has now reopened with an enhanced service, larger space and more staff to look after females in my constituency who need that important specialist care.
There has been an improvement in orthopaedics in the area. We now have our own kidney dialysis unit, thanks to the generosity of the people of mid-Essex who, through the work of Dr. Mike Weston, raised the funds to build the kidney unit which is now being run as part of the costs of the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust for the benefit of my constituents. No longer do they have to go elsewhere for kidney dialysis; they can receive treatment on the premises, close to their homes.
I am pleased to say that mental health care has also been greatly enhanced, with the building of the Linden centre on the site of Broomfield hospital, providing state-of-the-art premises with one or two secure rooms for patients who need to be looked after in more secure circumstances, rather than the old Victorian buildings that we associated with mental health care until recently.
St. John's hospital in my constituency offers primarily, although not exclusively, geriatric care, maternity care and children's services. The children's unit has been modernised, partly through the generosity of local people who raised funds a few years ago with the help of a campaign run by the local newspaper, the Essex Chronicle. Geriatric care has also been enhanced. Maternity care in the hospital is extremely good, although I am sad to have to report to the House that far too many of my constituents still complain that, despite the excellent medical care they receive when they go in to have their babies, the food at the hospital is bad. We should be able to improve the quality of food served in hospitals.
As a result of all those improvements, the service is vibrant. I am not so blinkered as to say that everything is 100 per cent. perfect. Clearly, in any service, especially one as sensitive as health care, where many thousands of patients—in-patients and out-patients—are treated every day of the year, there will be some problems and some mistakes. North Essex is not immune to that, but there is no point in harping on about the few problems that occur in such a service when, as a whole, the health care, it provides is excellent.
Regardless of whether there is a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, the occasional problem will arise and mistakes will be made, but they must be seen in the context of the vast majority of patients who receive first-rate treatment and care.
Of course, all the services cost money. Before the reforms and the establishment of the North Essex health authority, there was a serious problem in mid-Essex. Under the old North East Thames regional health authority, the Government of the day gave the regional health authority X hundred million pounds a year to distribute to the districts in its region.
It was not the Government, but the regional health authority, that determined how much money the district health authority received. That difficulty was compounded by the problems of the resource allocation working party system introduced in the late 1970s, which ran until the early 1990s. As a gross generalisation, it could be said that an affluent area with a rapidly expanding population was linked into a regional health authority with an area such as the east end of London, which had a falling population, social problems and problems of urban deprivation that do not occur in mid or north Essex.
Under the operation of RAWP, the east end of London, with a falling population, received a disproportionate amount of the funding each year from the North East Thames regional health authority compared with the Essex end of the region, which over the years had a significant impact on the level of funding for mid and north Essex. As long as that system operated, there was no way for them to catch up. There was a ratchet effect, and RAWP dictated how the money was be distributed.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I hope that I am not interrupting the detail of my hon. Friend's speech, but the situation was worse than he has described. Under RAWP, resources were allocated disproportionately to London health districts and, at the same time, money was allocated from the Thames region to other areas of the United Kingdom that had historically been underfunded. The home counties suffered a double whammy: money was squeezed from us and allocated to London, and money was squeezed from the Thames region generally. As a result, we were, by any standards, underfunded.

Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend who, with his usual perspicacity, has anticipated my next point. He is absolutely right: it was a double whammy.
The situation improved in the early 1990s, when RAWP was removed and a new formula was introduced. In its dying days, the North East Thames regional health authority had the decency to admit, after many years of denial, that north Essex had suffered as a result of its distribution of Government money. From about 1993–94, the change brought genuine benefits to areas such as mid-Essex and to the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Essex, and to that of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and his predecessor, Lord Newton.
The new formula took into account areas with rising populations and the number of people in the district. In 1993, my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford, and for North Essex, and the former right hon. Member for Braintree, and I went to see the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). We explained, yet again, the problems that our areas suffered as a result of RAWP. My right hon. Friend gave a commitment that she would ensure that, as the reforms came through, areas such as mid and north Essex would begin to make up funding and narrow the gap between the money they actually received and what they would receive if the money were distributed differently.
To her credit, my right hon. Friend and her successors in the Department of Health delivered on that promise. North Essex has done extremely well in the past four financial years. The level of funding reflected the historic problems in our area—the government of the day made no bones about that. Year after year, we received significant increases in health funding over and above the rate of inflation. The gap narrowed and extra money was spent on the provision of patient care—the purpose for which it is intended.
The Government have just announced the funding allocations for next year. It does politicians no good to pick holes for the sake of it, so I say at the outset that we welcome the extra money that will be provided for health


care in north Essex next year. North Essex will receive £14 million, or 5.01 per cent. That is a real funding increase—given that the Government are using 2.75 per cent. as the inflation indicator—of 2.25 per cent. I hope that my maths is correct.

Mr. Greg Pope: It is 2.26 per cent.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance.
It would be churlish and foolish to criticise that allocation—and I have no intention of doing so. The least one can do is recognise the assistance that is being provided.
However, that does not mean that I am 100 per cent. happy with the situation. I shall not spoil my speech by beginning to carp, but I know the Minister is aware—his capable civil servants will have briefed him before the debate—that the Government have changed the formula for 1998–99. It has not changed radically—perhaps one could say that the Government have tweaked the formula. The change was forecast in a written answer to me on 8 July this year, and I was told that it would probably occur in time for 1998–99, so it comes as no surprise.
The tweaking of the formula has altered the change in needs formula and reduced the number of pay zones. That impacts on the amount of money that north Essex will receive next year. The situation is horrendously complicated, and the Minister can rest assured that I shall not rehearse the minutiae of the funding formula and its operation, which is open to interpretation. The bottom line is that, if the formula had not been tweaked this year and we had used the present formula, the North Essex health authority tells me that we would have received £1.2 million more. That money will now go to East London and The City health authority.
I do not want the debate to degenerate into a party political slanging match, but I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to re-examine the changes that have been made to the formula. It would be unrealistic to expect the Minister to look at the operation of the formula next year and revisit those allocations. The Government have changed the formula, calculated the allocations to health authorities and announced those sums.
The Minister may argue, with some justification, that we are talking about a relatively small amount—it is small in monetary terms, but not so small in terms of health care provision next year—but if the formula continues on the same basis beyond 1999, the cumulative effect over several years could be a widening discrepancy. That is why I ask the Minister—he does not have to commit himself tonight to a final decision—to reconsider the tweaking of the formula for 1998–99 to see whether any improvements can be made in future.
The Broomfield hospital and the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust had a terrible problem last year and the year before over the thorny and difficult question of bed blocking. From my own experience, up to 1 May we heard the same old arguments: social services blamed the health trust or health authority, and the health trust or health authority blamed social services. In all too many cases, they were waiting to see who blinked first, as the one to blink first would probably pick up the bill.
It has been a problem for many years. The Department of Health is extremely concerned about it and a number of measures have been taken in the past two years to get

social services and health authorities to work closer together from the top down, but particularly lower down, so that there are no territorial battles, petty jealousies and so on and so that they do not try to avoid responsibility for taking decisions.
We had a serious problem. It has not gone away. The last figures that I have seen for bed blocking at Broomfield hospital is 91 beds. That is significantly more, if my memory is correct, than this time last year, when I think the figure was about 60.
The Government announce—late last week, I think—that there is an extra £300 million, which is being distributed to the health authorities and social services to help solve the problem and any crisis during the winter months. I am delighted to see that they are following the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) who, as Secretary of State for Health this time last year, and in February of this year, also provided extra money to help overcome problems with the winter crisis and bed blocking. We welcome the money that the Government have allocated to the health authority and to social services in north Essex. I genuinely hope that it helps to deal with the problems that could arise during the winter.
All of us are, of course, totally in the dark as to the extent of any problem, because by definition we do not know what the weather will be like over the next four months. I remember that the colder and more difficult it gets, the more strains and pressures are put on the health service and that a large proportion of the people affected are elderly. We welcome the money.
I shall appreciate it if the Minister will at least look at the formula again to see whether anything can be done in subsequent years to avoid the recurrence of a problem that we thought we had got rid of in 1993–94 but which seems to be coming back.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for securing this debate on a subject of great interest to hon. Members who represent the northern part of the county of Essex. I am also grateful to him for his historical sweep and panorama of the history of health services in the county and his skill with the abacus when trying to ascertain the precise financial calculations. It is a matter that bedevils hon. Members from north Essex.
The Government have made more funds available for the health service in north Essex. A very substantial sum, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been made available this winter to deal with what is crudely called bed blocking. That sum is now available. Indeed, very large sums are available for the coming year. The figure that I have in mind is £17.5 million for north Essex. In growth terms, £7.8 million is available for north Essex. I do not have the advantage of the instant mental arithmetic necessary to say whether those figures are right or wrong, but I am advised that they are correct.
Whatever the precise situation, the sums are very much greater than what was envisaged. Notwithstanding that, the health authority has initiated a consultation exercise entitled "Taking the Initiative". Unfortunately, many of my constituents regard that as a misnomer. The term that they would use is taking the mickey—not out of any


disrespect whatever for the health authority or the trusts. Up to the early part of this year, we were told that everything in the garden was rosy.
Further south than the area represented by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), things might be somewhat rosier. Indeed, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust has spent very large sums on extending, to a very high standard—for which it is to be credited—the hospital at Broomfield. That hospital is on the north-west side of Chelmsford and is not in the Braintree, Colchester or Harwich constituencies. As a consequence, those who live in Braintree, or, indeed, other places, are now expected to go to Broomfield rather than their local hospitals. They have a much greater burden on them.
I am particularly concerned, as I represent Braintree. We have three hospitals, but one of them, Black Notley hospital, was marked for closure long before the present Government came to office. That hospital carried out elective surgery to a very high standard and was enormously popular but, unfortunately, many in my area would concede that the battle is lost. The document "Taking the Initiative" proposes that the health authority considers representations from the trust to close the remaining two hospitals—St. Michael's and, with great insensitivity, the William Julian Courtauld hospital.
The name Courtauld is probably known way beyond the confines of north Essex. The Courtauld family were very large weavers and millers in the towns of Braintree, Halstead and elsewhere up to the 1960s. They were very large employers of labour and were great benefactors to the town of Braintree. After the first world war, William Julian Courtauld donated the site, at the very least, of the William Julian Courtauld hospital. Thereafter, as I am advised by those more senior than I in the town of Braintree, the rest of the money was raised by public subscription pound for pound between the Courtaulds and those who worked for them. Hence the name William Julian Courtauld hospital.
Over the years, the William Julian Courtauld hospital has stood the town in very good stead indeed. At one time, operations and all manner of medical procedures were carried out there. It is right to say that the scope is more limited now, but many would say that it is probably one of the finest non-acute maternity hospitals in the county. Mothers who have had their children there will endlessly speak well of it, and will vehemently oppose its closure on that ground alone. What is even more ironic is that, at the beginning of this year, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust, which now says that it cannot possibly afford to keep any of these hospitals open, spent £360,000 on the William Julian Courtauld hospital on improvements and renovations. That is less than nine months ago from the moment we speak.
The new extension was opened—proudly, with a fanfare—by the high sheriff of the county. The ceremony was attended by my predecessor, now Lord Newton. Only a few months later, however, the same health trust brought out "Taking the Initiative" —as it called it; the initiative was to close that very hospital.
I think that hon. Members can imagine the horror with which the move was regarded in Braintree. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich will say similar

things about what is proposed in Clacton. Very large public meetings have already been held in Braintree, in which the health trust has had to face its accuser—its accusers, of course, being the patients and people of Braintree.
I give the trust full marks for the courage and fortitude that enabled it to stand before 600 or 700 people, all of one mind, who say that hospitals in Braintree should be retained and people in that town should not be sent down to Broomfield—however wonderful it is—for everything that they need to go there for. Strangely enough, in the smaller print of the document that the trust chose to call "Taking the Initiative", further cuts are proposed in the transport provisions that the trust will provide.
Braintree is not a wealthy town. Many of those who live in adjoining areas inhabit small villages. Travelling to Broomfield is not an easy ride unless the traveller has a car. Travel by public transport is an expensive and time-consuming business. That will place further strain on, frequently, an elderly relative, if that person's husband or wife is in hospital recuperating after an operation.
It is accepted that serious operations will need to take place in Broomfield, but there is a great need for recuperation beds in patients' own towns and close to where they can be visited by their relatives. I say this on no medical authority and I am sure that it is not in Gray's "Anatomy", but I have no doubt that those who are close to home, visited daily by uncomplaining relatives, may mend that much faster than those who are in a strange place where their relatives are tired and irritated because the bus did not arrive or it was raining on the journey. I believe that there is a very good case—especially given the extra money that the Minister has provided for Essex—for the present services in Braintree to be retained.
Finally, I shall make a broader point that emerges from tonight's debate. It relates to the local administration of health services in the county of Essex and, I suspect, in the country as a whole. On 1 May, a different Administration were elected. I make no political point about that, but one of the crucial features of the programme of that new Administration was extra provision for health.
My colleagues in the Department have made large amounts of money available for health, but that money is now being administered by non-elected bodies, usually composed of people who are not naturally of a progressive persuasion in politics, advised by officers who may also not necessarily be of that view. There is therefore a danger that, unwittingly—I am sure that there is no deliberate intent on the part of those who serve on health trusts—such people will come into conflict with the Government.
As could be imagined, the health trust sought to justify the draconian closures that it initially proposed. It is fair to say that it has now backed off and proposes to close only one unit, although that involves taking away most of the services. It said, "We did not really mean to close them all to begin with" —but it is there in scripture: it is there in the document, for all to see.
The fear is that the trust is justifying what appears to be an absurdity. The more money it is given, the more closures must follow. It will say, "Look to your Member of Parliament to explain the answer; ask the Government why it is," but it is the Government who are providing the money and the services.


We should think long and hard about the future administration of health locally, and the trusts should be accountable not only to the Government who provide money, but to the residents whose wishes and needs they are there to serve.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I hope that unelected individuals who have worked long and hard for the health service will win the trust of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). I realise that he may have found the early months of this Parliament somewhat bruising, given the prospect of so much change in the health service in his constituency. He laments the fact that unelected individuals may come into conflict with the Government, but that seems to show that individuals appointed by whatever party are doing their job to the best of their ability. The usual criticism of appointed individuals is that they are never prepared to come into conflict with the Government, who appointed them. 
I notice a little conundrum in the hon. Gentleman's criticism, and I reiterate that people in health authorities and those who run trusts are doing a good job. They are working extremely hard for the health service, and in some respects are the unsung heroes. It is easy to pay tribute to nurses, doctors and consultants, but it is more difficult to pay tribute to administrators. They get the flak: they are down with politicians, journalists, estate agents and ad men in the public's esteem. I suggest tentatively that politicians have lumbered them with this job, so we should be grateful to them.
In particular, I should like to pay tribute to Nigel Offen, the chief executive of Essex Rivers Healthcare trust. He suffers the indignities of being in public life and is subject to public scrutiny. If he were in the private sector, he would command a considerably higher salary. He is committed to public service, and he deserves more public support from us than he gets, although I am not criticising the hon. Member for Braintree for that. 
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate. It is a luxury to have such a long time to debate the north Essex health service. I pay tribute to him, because he has brought to the Chamber not only the Minister, but my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and the hon. Members for Braintree, for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) and for Colchester (Mr. Russell). This is where decisions are made, and where it matters.
I have been critical of one or two of our Essex colleagues for attacking those who are carrying out the decisions that are made by the House instead of bringing their complaints to the Chamber. I am pleased to see that so many Essex colleagues are present, so I withdraw that criticism. They are showing their commitment to the proper political process.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of my criticisms of North Essex health authority concerns its finances. Its draft business plan of October 1996 showed uncommitted capital for 1997–98, but all of a sudden it was £6 million in debt. It should have shown more expertise in forward planning, and should not have left it until six months later to decide that it was £6 million in debt. I have asked the Minister's Department to look into that issue, because it

worries my constituents. As a result of that deficit, a review of my two local hospitals was started last April. Questions need to be asked, and we deserve answers from the health authority.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to answers, but I am confident that, if he speaks to North Essex health authority or to the health trusts in his constituency, he will get those answers.
One of the features of NHS finance about which the Labour party was a little unsympathetic, if I can put it that way, was that NHS finance is extremely difficult to manage. One of the reasons why North Essex health authority has regularly had deficits is that Essex Rivers Healthcare hospital—the Colchester general hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Colchester—regularly treats far too many patients. I say that not because those patients do not need treatment, but because the hospital treats far too many in terms of its budget and forecasts. That is particularly the case in the accident and emergency department.
It is one of the unexplained phenomena of modern health care that there has been an exponential increase in the number of people who walk into accident and emergency departments every day, to the extent that, during my time as a Member of Parliament for a north Essex constituency, the number of people being treated in accident and emergency departments by Essex Rivers Healthcare has virtually doubled. That is not because more people are having twice the number of road accidents or falling down stairs; it is simply a matter of rising expectations.
The excess of capital is the result of delays in capital projects. It is something that we struggled with in government, trying to introduce the private finance initiative into the health service to maximise the use of capital. I have no doubt that the Labour Government will have similar difficulties, but I hope and pray that they will be successful.
In response to the hon. Member for Braintree, I would say that there is a general philosophy in the health service. It starts in the Department of Health; it is replicated in the management outposts, which are in effect vestiges of the old regional health authorities; and it continues throughout the whole culture of the service. That philosophy is that big is beautiful. 
Big is what administrators like; big is what consultants like, because it means that they spend less time driving from hospital to hospital; and big is also what accountants like. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) discovered when he was Secretary of State for Wales, that philosophy often results in expensive readjustments to health capacity and the closure of smaller units. We should ask quite openly—the hon. Member for Harwich should pursue this with regard to the Harwich hospital—whether that is the right philosophy. If it is not, are we right to expect health trusts, which are essentially general hospitals, to deliver small-unit, local hospital care, or should we be more imaginative and find alternative methods of delivery such as GP fundholding?
Why not extend the principle of GP fundholding beds into the community? Many GP fundholding practices are hungry and ambitious to do better for their patients. They would look after day patients, or even overnight cases,


perhaps much more effectively and nearer patients' homes than a general hospital could. That would also free up capacity, and such practices could bring in more private capital. I do not want to get bogged down in the usual ideological arguments across the Floor of the House, but we have to be open-minded about such ideas, as they might help the hon. Members for Harwich and for Braintree.

Mr. Bob Russell: When the Minister replies, will he take due account of how the Essex Members of Parliament across the political divide are all singing the same song? Mention was made of small neighbourhood hospitals. Colchester is indeed blessed with a new hospital, for which we must thank the previous Government. My concern is that it is on a cramped site. Various arms of the national health service, which is one of the largest landowners in Colchester, are busily selling sites at the expense of the general hospital's future. If the neighbourhood hospitals in Clacton, Harwich and, indeed, Braintree were closed, it would have a serious effect on the Colchester hospital.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be very brief, and not be speeches in themselves.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for that admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall take it to heart myself and be as brief as I can. The Minister heard what the hon. Member for Colchester said, and I hope that he will respond positively.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, spending pressures will have an effect across the north Essex health area, not only on the constituency of the hon. Member for Colchester but on my own constituency—thereby increasing pressure on demand for services at Colchester general hospital and, more directly, affecting residents at places such as St. Osyth and Tendring, in the east.
Those effects will be felt because, under the Government's new adjusted formula, we are still short by about £8 million. On the original formula, we would have been £19 million short.
Yesterday, I received from the Minister a written answer in which he said that it is futile to make hypothetical calculations on the basis of a formula that is no longer used. However—without getting involved in party political argument over the size of any increases—the current allocation leaves us £19 million short of what we would have received under our formula.
We have never been fully funded, and we have always complained that we were not fully funded. The depressing aspect of the matter is that we are going backwards. Whereas, over the years, we were gradually catching up in our formula allocations, the net effect of the formula change is that we are falling behind. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, the Minister should re-examine the matter. 
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health to ask whether he would meet a delegation of north Essex Members to discuss the formula. In much the same way that hon. Members had constructive and non-cantankerous

meetings with the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), we should like to have similar meetings with the new Secretary of State. Although I wrote that letter on 30 October, I have not yet had a reply to it. I know that he is a busy man. I hope, however, that the Minister will take it on board that I made the request on behalf of north Essex Members and that, eventually, we shall be able to meet the Secretary of State.
The bed blocking issue hangs over us. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, we are enjoying extremely mild weather, but there is bound to be a cold snap. That is when accident and emergency departments will fill up with extra patients, and bed blocking will worsen. More beds are clogged this winter than at any time since I have been a Member of Parliament. Despite the extra money, therefore, the situation could become more serious than it has ever been before. Unless we deal with the fundamental problem of how resources are allocated, the bed blocking problem will keep recurring.
I very much welcome the debate and hope that, in the long term, we can resolve the problems. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford on securing the debate

Mr. John Whittingdale: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Before the election, my constituency straddled two of the former health authorities in north Essex—the north-east Essex area and the mid-Essex area—and I echo his remarks about the managers who work for our local health service. He is right to say that they often do not receive the recognition that they are due. I join him in paying tribute to all the people who work for the health service, including the managers, in north Essex. 
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, which is of great importance to my constituents and, of course, to all the constituents of hon. Members who have spoken. I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make a brief contribution. He has already described in some detail the history of underfunding that North Essex health authority has suffered. I do not want to cover the same ground that he has already gone over, but suffice it to say that—for the five years that I have been in Parliament—my hon. Friends and I have regularly banged on the doors of Health Ministers to plead the case for north Essex.
As my hon. Friends have described, the situation is not new, because north Essex has suffered from underfunding for some time. In the past, our case has been recognised, and the fact that North Essex health authority has suffered a greater shortfall in the amounts actually received compared with the target allocation has led North Essex to receive one of the biggest increases of any health authority in the country. It is for that reason that the change in the formula is so worrying to us.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford in welcoming the extra money that has been provided this year, both in the allocation that has been made for health authority spending and the extra that has recently been announced to tackle the specific problem of emergency
admissions this winter. However, the target allocation for the health authority has been reduced as a result of the change in the formula that the Government have made. That means that north Essex can no longer look forward to increases on the same scale that it has enjoyed in the past. For that reason, North Essex health authority has really had no choice but to contemplate reductions in facilities and services.
My hon. Friends and other hon. Members have referred to some of the likely consequences of any reductions. I wish to concentrate on the specific implications for one hospital—St. Peter's hospital in Maldon in my constituency. St. Peter's is a community hospital, in that it serves people living in the district of Maldon. It has extensive out-patient facilities, as well as 58 elderly persons beds, eight general practitioner beds and a maternity unit.
All those facilities are greatly valued by the people in Maldon, which is a large district with a scattered community. In particular, those living in the Dengie peninsula are a long way from the main general hospital at Broomfield, which has already been mentioned. St. Peter's hospital is therefore essential, so that patients living in my constituency can receive treatment without having to travel an unreasonable distance.
In seeking to make savings, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust originally put forward a proposal that would have led to the closure of St. Peter's hospital. I am pleased to say that that option has been rejected by North Essex health authority. Although it would have released some £2 million in savings if the whole closure programme had been implemented, the health authority has said that it is not a realistic option. I warmly applaud that decision, which is admirable common sense. However, there is still a proposal on the table to close the GP beds and the maternity unit at St. Peter's.
In the year to March 1997, 189 deliveries took place in the maternity unit at St. Peter's. That may not seem very many, but it must be borne in mind that the alternatives available to expectant mothers living in the Maldon district are to have their babies at home or to travel to St. John's hospital in Chelmsford. St John's hospital is some way away, particularly for those mothers in some of the more distant villages in my constituency, such as Bradwell or Tillingham. 
There is also a proposal on the table that, in the long term, St. John's hospital will no longer be available. Eventually, maternity facilities may be concentrated at Broomfield hospital. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) referred to the difficulties that his constituents have in reaching Broomfield, on the north-west side of Chelmsford. My constituents in the further reaches of the Maldon district will find it even more difficult. They may face journeys of up to an hour to get to the hospital. 
In 1993, the Government published a document entitled, "Changing Childbirth", which stated Government policy on maternity services. The document says:
Maternity services must be readily and easily accessible to all. They should be sensitive to the needs of the local population and based primarily in the community.
That document was produced by the previous Government. I wrote to the Minister about that. His reply of 5 October said:

I can confirm that the Government fully agrees with the principles of women-centred maternity care, as outlined in `Changing Childbirth'.
That document still represents Government policy on maternity services. If that is to be a reality and if the Government are to meet the objective of serving the needs of the local population by basing care primarily in the community, closing St. Peter's maternity unit would be a great step backwards.
The proposal to close the maternity unit at St. Peter's has understandably led to considerable protest in the Maldon district. Two local mothers, Nicky Crisp and Caroline Anderson, have put together a campaigning organisation called MOMMS-Mothers Opposed to Maldon Maternity Shutdown. In just a few months, they have collected more than 7,000 signatures on a petition, which I hope to be able to present to the House in the near future.
I am encouraged by the assurance of the chief executive of North Essex health authority that the current consultation period is genuine and that no final decisions have been taken. I hope that that is the case, and that there is still an opportunity for the decision to close the maternity unit to be reversed. If St. Peter's is to have a long-term future, the only real solution will be money. That is why I come back to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for North Essex.
North Essex has enjoyed large increases in the past because of the extent to which funding has fallen short of the target level. If the Government's change to the formula means that the area can no longer look forward to the same level of increase that we have enjoyed, I am pessimistic about the future of St. Peter's. I therefore echo the appeal of my hon. Friends to the Minister to reconsider the issue, to see whether the formula can be adjusted to reflect the genuine needs of my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing time for it. The fact that so many hon. Members from both sides have contributed to this full debate is indicative of the seriousness of the issues raised. I pay tribute to him.
I also support the tributes that have been paid to all national health service staff. They do an extremely good job, often in difficult circumstances and under enormous pressure.
It is especially appropriate to record our thanks at this time of year, with winter pressing. One thing is certain in the national health service—that winter inevitably brings additional pressures, not only in Essex but throughout the country. The people who will be on the front line of coping and of delivering high-quality services are the staff who work on our wards and in the community—and yes, those in the offices, too. NHS staff perform a vital function, and it is right and proper that hon. Members on both sides of the House have recorded their thanks to them. 
I assure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that the Government share his desire to see high-quality health care available to people in all parts of the country. He went out of his way to make the House aware of many of the developments that have taken place in and near his constituency over recent years, and clearly those developments are welcome to his constituents.
In framing our national policy as a Government, we must ensure that the same advantages that have accrued to the hon. Gentleman's constituents are available to all. As he knows, the national health service was founded on the principle that the best health care should be available to everyone on the basis of need alone; I am sure that that is a principle that all hon. Members share.
However, the national health service that the Government have inherited is not always providing the best care in all circumstances at all times. Many people within the NHS—the very members of staff whom the hon. Gentleman praised—have become increasingly concerned in recent years about some of the unfairness that has crept into the delivery of care. There are concerns about accessibility and variations in quality—and, of course, there are concerns about the fact that sometimes the NHS has become rather too burdened with unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape.
However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the new Government have already taken several steps to remedy that situation. I am sure that he and others will bear with me for a moment if, before dealing with the specific situation in north Essex, I briefly mention some of those developments—not least because many of the policy developments that we have instituted over the past few months have a direct bearing on the situation facing his constituents and those of other hon. Members.
As the House will know, a wide range of action is in progress, or has already been taken, designed to replace the internal market in the NHS. Guidance has been issued to introduce common waiting lists for non-urgent cases, and to move the health service away from the market mentality that has developed in recent times towards a more co-operative approach to commissioning health services.
Management costs in the current financial year have been reduced by £100 million, and that money is being applied to front-line patient services. I noted with interest the hon. Gentleman's support for such developments in his opening remarks. I am sure that such support will be welcome both in the Department of Health and elsewhere.
Only last month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an extra £300 million for the national health service. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford rather cheekily claimed that that followed the precedent set by the previous Secretary of State.

Mr. Burns: indicated assent

Mr. Milburn: It is true that the previous Secretary of State allocated extra cash for the winter months last year, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, although his right hon. Friend did that on two occasions, he allocated a total of only £25 million. Of course that money was most welcome in many constituencies, and proved a real

bonus for the NHS—but I must point out that it is somewhat dwarfed by the £300 million invested this year by the present Government.

Mr. Burns: Would the Minister be kind enough to check that figure and write to me after the debate?

Mr. Milburn: I will gladly check the figure—it was two tranches, one of £20 million and another of £5 million. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if that is helpful.
The money that has been made available—the extra £300 million—is not just to deal with the immediate pressures of the winter, which we recognise. It will help to raise the foundations for long-term developments that will deal with some of the issues raised tonight—the problems which bedevil the delivery of services between the health and social care systems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describes this as a "Berlin wall" and we are determined to break down that wall.
The people who suffer when the interface fails to deliver are the most vulnerable patients—people with mental health problems, disabled people and the elderly. We are determined to improve that situation.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget allocated an extra £1,200 million to the NHS next year, and we brought forward the allocation to the end of last month, to allow health authorities to plan over an 18-month period. 
Finally on the subject of money, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) talked about the problems which have bedevilled the private finance initiative. There have been problems with the PFI, but they are problems of the past. This Government have taken decisive action to unlock the gridlock in the PFI. As a consequence, we were able to announce a few months ago an additional capital investment for the NHS, though the PFI, of £1,300 million for 14 new hospitals. Since then, we have been able to announce a new hospital to be funded through the PFI, which will be built at Greenwich.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friends refrained from wandering down the path of party political comparisons, because we wanted to discuss a particular issue, and I hope that the Minister will not use all his time making comparisons. We could all join in that game, but that is not the point of this debate.

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am coming to the issues in Essex, but it is important to place in context the issues that Opposition Members have raised. Many of the issues raised tonight have been questions of funding.
Since the election on 1 May, the Government have invested an extra £1,500 million in the NHS for revenue purposes, and more than £1,300 million for capital purposes. Those and other policies which we will produce in due course will enable health authorities throughout the country—including those which serve the constituencies of Opposition Members—to provide better care for everyone.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford about the level of funding and the changes to the funding formula for next year and beyond. I listened also to his historical discourse
about the problems which he imagines have been endured by his part of the world. As he knows from his time at the Department, the funding formula is a fiendishly complex issue, and I thought it might be useful to him and to others if I explained briefly the three main changes to the formula we have made for the next financial year, beginning on 1 April.
First, we have extended the needs adjustment from 86 per cent. to 100 per cent. of expenditure, in line with advice that the Government received from the expert committee which served under the previous Government. Secondly, we have improved the market forces factor by reducing the number of pay zones from 61 to 51. Thirdly, we have introduced a geographical cost adjustment for the emergency ambulance service, partly in recognition of the need of shire areas. Under that element of the changes, North Essex is a gainer, and I am sure that Opposition Members will welcome that.
We are making the changes as part of our commitment to making the distribution of resources fairer, in support of our objective of reducing both inequities in access to health services and inequalities in health. The changes will not be the end of the matter.
I can give an undertaking that the Government will consider further changes to the formula. Indeed, we have established a new advisory committee on resource allocation to do specifically that. Its programme for next year will include a special focus on the market forces factor, which, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford knows, has been the subject of much controversy in the national health service. I shall also ask the committee to consider whether the existing method of counting the population in health authority areas is accurate, as there have been some concerns about under-counting of particular groups in the population.
The changes are not the end of the matter, but they are a start. We want resources to be more fairly distributed across both primary and secondary care. For 1998–99, beginning on 1 April, every health authority in the country will receive a real—terms increase in its allocation for the delivery of local health services. There will be a minimum growth in allocation of 1.35 per cent. in real terms.
North Essex does rather better than that, receiving 2.2 per cent. in real terms. That makes it the 26th biggest gainer out of 100 health authorities. We have changed the formula, and that results in changes to health authorities' target shares. I can give an undertaking that we will move health authorities, including North Essex, to those targets over time.
There was a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, about the implications of the changes in the formula. As he knows, the matter is fiendishly complex and difficult, but it is simply not the case that North Essex has lost out, for the straightforward reason that we apportion growth according to the distance from target of health authorities as a whole. We cannot view North Essex or any other health authority in isolation. We consider the composite picture.
Certainly, if there had been a different formula, there would have been different distances from target. As a consequence, there would have been a different apportionment of growth. The hon. Member for North Essex—I think that it was him—queried my answer about hypothetical situations, but it really is impossible to

compare like with like in the straightforward way that he wants. Perhaps we shall have to confront that problem, but that is the nature of the formula that we have inherited from the previous Administration.
We have changed the formula and made it fairer, and North Essex is a net gainer this year, especially in comparison with other health authorities.

Mr. Whittingdale: I understand what the Minister is saying, but our point is that, under the previous formula, North Essex and South Essex were the two authorities furthest from target, and were, as a result, the first and second biggest gainers in allocation of funds. Because the target has been changed and North Essex is no longer the furthest away, it is now, as the Minister said, only the 26th biggest gainer, rather than the first or second.

Mr. Milburn: North Essex got a 2.2 per cent. real-terms increase, compared with the English average of 1.9 per cent., and I can give the hon. Gentleman the historical context.
Our allocations for next year, giving a cash increase of 5 per cent., as opposed to the 2.2 per cent. in real terms, are higher than the average for the previous five years. So, the argument that Opposition Members are advancing that somehow—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for North Essex will calm down and resist the temptation to make the statistics squeal until they confess and look at the figures objectively, he will see that the increase of 5 per cent. for next year is bigger than the average for the previous five years. I should hope that Opposition Members would have welcomed that. It is a real benefit to his constituents and to those of other Opposition Members.

Mr. Burns: Of course the Minister is right, but let us look at the figure. He said "five years", and he did so for a reason, because the first year was the last year of RAWP, when the percentage cash increase was 2.7 per cent. In the remaining four years, until this year, it was between 4.5 per cent. and 6.4 per cent., and that is why the average is so high. Using the first year has brought the average down. If the Minister had given the average over the past four years, it would have been higher. Our point was that that was done to catch up because of what had happened under RAWP until 1992–93.

Mr. Milburn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point—it is pretty straightforward—but, however we look at the statistics, North Essex is doing extremely well. Its growth for next year is greater than that allocated for this financial year by his Government when he was a Minister in the Department of Health. I do not want to make a party political point about that. I merely want to make it clear that the Government are committed to the fair distribution of resources, which includes looking after the needs of residents in North Essex on a fair basis, and ensuring that they have the health services they deserve.
I am aware that there has been a problem in North Essex because of the financial position of the health authority and a number of the trusts, about which several hon. Members have raised concerns. An overspend of about £6.9 million was incurred by the health authority in 1996–97. As a result, it commissioned an investigation by an external agency into its financial planning and


management systems. The report identified certain shortcomings, and made recommendations to remedy them.
I understand that the health authority has implemented all the recommendations in the report, and that that has added a robustness to the authority's financial position. However, I recognise, as do other hon. Members, that the authority is facing a complex set of interdependent issues. 
As hon. Members know, it is simply not possible to extract one hospital or one bit of the health authority area from another. Nowadays, the national health service works increasingly as one. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made some of those points about the flow of patients and the fact that care is delivered on a more holistic basis than it has been.
The ultimate goal is to ensure that sustainable, high-quality clinical and cost-effective services are provided in modern facilities in all parts of the country. Although the consultation to which I will refer shortly will take time, those processes should ensure that whatever solution emerges is based on informed debate among the public and professionals.
A further financial problem was presented by three of the trusts in North Essex, which got into trouble recently and reported significant financial deficits. Those were carried forward into the current year, but, following work carried out by the trusts, the health authority and local general practitioner representatives, they have been considerably reduced, and are expected to be eliminated completely within the next two years.
However, I have asked the NHS executive's north Thames regional office to continue to monitor the situation closely. The last thing I want is for the national health service to enter the next financial year in the parlous state in which it entered this year, with record levels of debt. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) referred to the consultation on the subject of changes to acute and community services in north Essex. I have listened to their concerns and the case they outline, and I am aware of the strong local feelings on the proposals. It is vital that plans for service development are determined in a democratic manner and implemented sensitively and appropriately.
However, as that consultation is still in progress, it would be inappropriate for me at present to express an opinion either on whether or not consultation has been undertaken properly, or on the substantive issues it raises. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford will be aware that, if there is an objection from one of the local community health councils, the issue will end up on Ministers' desks, and it will be for Ministers to decide. I must and will keep an open mind until then, but I have listened carefully to what has been said this evening.
I will say that it is especially important to have local accountability, which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree mentioned. The way services are run and the way they develop must be properly in tune with local

needs and views, and it is extremely important that all those involved in running the NHS should remember that it is a public service. The NHS does not belong to them any more than it belongs to me; it belongs to the local community.
All those engaged in the processes of consultation and service development should take that as their yardstick. That is what the Government expect, and we will judge proposals accordingly. I can assure hon. Members that there is no fait accompli. We have a statutory responsibility to consult publicly, and we shall weigh the results both fairly and carefully.
A major challenge faced by the NHS in north Essex at present is that of managing the pressures that are always present in the health service during the winter. Those are being exacerbated in Essex by the large number of people who are waiting in hospital, despite being medically fit to be discharged—a point raised by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. That backlog of people waiting for discharge constitutes a severe pressure on acute services.
As I said, the Government have allocated an additional £300 million to the NHS to help the services to manage winter pressures. North Essex health authority has proposals, jointly drawn up with Essex county council and the local trusts. As a consequence, I have agreed that £2.8 million will be given to North Essex health authority this winter. More than 60 per cent. of that money will be spent on social care initiatives, which should considerably alleviate the delayed discharge problems by enabling people to be discharged from hospital into more appropriate care.
I have listened extremely carefully to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and other hon. Members this evening. This and other debates will inform the Government of the changes we will need to make to restore the NHS to a proper condition.
I give the House the assurance that those changes will be properly thought through and introduced sensitively; but changes there have to be, to ensure that local hospitals are able to provide a proper health care service in tune with our founding principles of the NHS. It is particularly important that we restore local accountability. The way services are run and the way they develop must be properly in tune with local needs and local views.
I recognise that the NHS in north Essex, like the service everywhere, is facing challenging times. The Government have recognised the problems, and have moved to help the local NHS by allocating the extra £7.8 million for the next year and the additional £2.8 million this winter. That should enable the NHS in North Essex to rise to the challenges it faces.
I share the determination of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that high-quality treatment and care are available to the people of his area. I am sure that the trusts in North Essex and the North Essex health authority share those commitments. Whether the proposals before the public will assist that process is a matter on which I shall certainly keep an open mind. I will consider the results with great care.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Ten o'clock.